JUDGMENT : RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J. 1. These Appeals have been preferred by the accused Nos. 2 to 8 in S.C.No.373 of 2017 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge-I Mavelikkara. Crl.A. No. 511 of 2020 has been preferred by accused Nos. 2 to 6, Crl.A. No. 554 of 2020 has been preferred by the 6th accused, Crl.A. No. 244 of 2020 has been preferred by the 7th accused, and Crl.A. No. 510 of 2020 has been preferred by the 8th accused. The 1st accused remained absconding all through, and hence did not face the trial. 2. By the judgment impugned, the appellants/accused, except the 7th accused, were found guilty and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lakh each for the offence under Section 302 r/w. Section 149 of the IPC ; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 449 of the IPC ; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 148 of the IPC ; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 149 of the IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 143 of the IPC , all with a default clause. The accused No. 7 was sentenced to undergo RI for 7 y ears and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC , with a default clause. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The accused Nos. 9 to 17 were acquitted of all charges. Gist of the Prosecution Case: 3. The prosecution case, in essence, is that the accused persons harboured deep-seated animosity towards Jishnu (the deceased), under the belief that he had played an active role in the murder of their friend, Ullas. He had further aggravated their resentment by allegedly celebrating Ullas’s death by bursting crackers. Driven by a desire for vengeance, the appellants hatched a conspiracy to retaliate and do away with Jishu on the previous day of the incident. 3.1 Pursuant to the said criminal conspiracy, on 10.02.2017, accused Nos. He had further aggravated their resentment by allegedly celebrating Ullas’s death by bursting crackers. Driven by a desire for vengeance, the appellants hatched a conspiracy to retaliate and do away with Jishu on the previous day of the incident. 3.1 Pursuant to the said criminal conspiracy, on 10.02.2017, accused Nos. 11, 14, 16, and 17 followed Jishnu and continuously relayed information regarding his movements to the other accused through mobile phone communication. On the basis of the inputs received from the rest of the accused, accused Nos. 1 to 10, 12, and 13, armed with dangerous weapons, pursued Jishnu on their motorbikes and scooters. At that time, Jishnu was travelling as a pillion rider on a motorbike bearing Registration No. KL-29/K-6921, ridden by PW1, his brother. PW2, a close friend of the deceased, was also accompanying them on another motorbike bearing Registration No. KL-29/K-7750. 3.2 At about 11:45 a.m., while Jishnu, PW1, and PW2 were waiting on their respective motorbikes at the Oottuparambu Railway Cross on their way home, accused Nos. 1 to 10, 12, and 13 chased them and shouted, to do away with him. Hearing this, Jishnu and PW1 attempted to flee on foot to save themselves, but accused Nos. 1 to 6 followed them, brandishing deadly weapons. PW2, in his attempt to escape, took a metal road leading towards Kurichikkal Kadavu, located on the western side of the Karuvatta Vazhiyambalam–Ootupurambu public road. However, accused No. 8 struck PW2 on his back with the blunt side of an axe-like weapon. Accused No. 7 inflicted a grievous injury on the left hand of PW2 with a sword, causing PW2 to collapse within the property of one Raveendran, situated on the western side of the said metal road. Accused No. 7 further attacked PW2 with the sword, inflicting an additional injury on his left hip. The accused Nos. 9, 10, and 13 assaulted PW2 using steel pipes, while accused No. 12 struck him with the blunt side of an axe-like weapon and also committed mischief by smashing PW2’s motorbike. 3.3 Meanwhile, Jishnu, in a desperate attempt to save his life, ran into a nearby residence known as ‘Manjathappally House’ at Karuvatta Vadakkum Muri, wherein PW3 was residing with her child and mother-in-law. The said house was situated approximately 500 metres from the Ootuparambu railway gate. 3.3 Meanwhile, Jishnu, in a desperate attempt to save his life, ran into a nearby residence known as ‘Manjathappally House’ at Karuvatta Vadakkum Muri, wherein PW3 was residing with her child and mother-in-law. The said house was situated approximately 500 metres from the Ootuparambu railway gate. With a view to save his life, he locked himself inside a room on the first floor of the said house in an effort to conceal himself from his pursuers. However, accused Nos. 1 to 6 and 8 followed him to the house, forcibly entered the premises, and broke open the door to the room where Jishnu had taken refuge. The prosecution further alleges that accused Nos. 1 to 6 and 8, acting in concert and armed with deadly weapons, brutally assaulted Jishnu, inflicting multiple grievous injuries on various parts of his body, which ultimately resulted in his death. Registration of Crime and Investigation: 4. At 2:00 p.m. on the same day, the statement of Vishnu, the brother of the deceased, was recorded by the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Haripad and on its basis, Crime No. 234 of 2017 of the Haripad Police Station (Ext.P89) was registered inter alia for t he offences punishable under Sections 143 , 147, 148, 307, 302 r/w. Section 149 of the IPC at 4:18 p.m. on the same day. In the FIR, Sudheesh (A1), Ambili (A2), Arun (A3), Sarath (later found to be Sanu (A4)), Pradeep (A5), and Rahul (A6) were named, and insofar as the others are concerned, it is stated that there were ten others, who could be identified at sight. 4.1 The First Information Statement was recorded by PW87, the Grade SI attached to the Haripad Police Station. He stated that he received telephonic information that an incident involving the infliction of stab injury had taken place at Oottuparambu, and he i mmediately conveyed the message to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Haripad. As directed by the Sub-Inspector, he went to the Medical College Hospital, Vandanam. PW1, the brother of the deceased, was there at the hospital and his statement was recorded. PW2, Suraj, who was also injured in the same incident, was also admitted in the hospital. When he made an attempt to prepare the body note of Suraj, he was informed that PW2 was in the Operation Theatre. PW1, the brother of the deceased, was there at the hospital and his statement was recorded. PW2, Suraj, who was also injured in the same incident, was also admitted in the hospital. When he made an attempt to prepare the body note of Suraj, he was informed that PW2 was in the Operation Theatre. 4.2 The Sub-Inspector of Police, Haripad, who was examined as PW95, on receipt of telephonic information of the hacking incident at Oottuparambu, went to the spot along with his party. He reached the spot at 12:15 p.m. On reaching the spot, he noticed some young men fleeing from the spot on seeing the police. However, as the assailants had run helter-skelter, he was not able to apprehend them. The Assistant Sub-Inspector produced the FI Statement, on the basis of which Crime No. 234 of 2017 was registered. 4.3 PW96, the Inspector of Police Kayamkulam, took over the investigation on the basis of the orders passed by the District Police Chief, Alappuzha, who had constituted a Special Investigation Team. He reached the Medical College Hospital, Vandanam, and conducted an inquest over the dead body of the deceased and prepared the Inquest Report (Ext.P13). MO16 underwear and MO17 sheet, used to cover the body, were seized and forwarded to the Court. The body was sent to the Forensic Surgeon for conducting the autopsy. 4.4 On 11.02.2017, at about 8:30 a.m., the Investigating Officer secured the presence of the Scientific Expert and visited the scene of crime. Ext.P19 Scene Mahazar was prepared. Trace evidence was collected from the road and from the scene of the crime. The bike bearing Registration No. KL-21-K-6921, owned by PW1, was found in the house of one Raveendran in a damaged condition. From the property of one Biji of “Madav Vilasam” situated on the eastern side of the railway cross, a rose-colored Lungi, which had come off from the deceased at the time of fleeing from the spot, was found. He noted blood stains on the kitchen floor, the vessels, the fridge, the walls of the house, the stairs and the handrails leading to the first floor. On the landing area of the first floor, he found a solid concrete brick, a boundary stone, and a coconut scraper without the tongue. He noted that the door leading to the bedroom had been broken open using a heavy stone. On the landing area of the first floor, he found a solid concrete brick, a boundary stone, and a coconut scraper without the tongue. He noted that the door leading to the bedroom had been broken open using a heavy stone. The samples of blood, nail clippings, and bone marrow samples, handed over by the Investigating Officer, were seized for the purpose of analysis. On the basis of information that the accused Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 6 were travelling in a bus from Ernakulam-Kottayam via Alappuzha, the bus was intercepted at Alappuzha, near to the General Hospital, and the accused were taken into custody at 8:45 p.m. on 11.02.2017, and their arrest was recorded at 10:00 p.m. Later, Ext.P111 report was submitted before the Court, incorporating Sections 427 and 449 of the IPC . As the arrested accused disclosed that the clothes worn by them were the ones that they were wearing at the time of arrest, the same were seized as per Ext.P112 Property List. Ext.P114 report was then submitted before the Court, incorporating Section 120B of the IPC . Later, on the basis of source information that the accused Nos. 8 and 9 were travelling by train to Kayamkulam, they were intercepted and arrested at 1:00 p.m. on 15.02.2017. In the course of the investigation, it was revealed that the actual name of the 4th accused was “Sanu” and after identifying the identity of accused Nos. 7 and 10, Ext.P126 report was submitted before the Court, stating all these aspects. 4.5 On 18.02.2017, the accused Nos. 7 and 10 were spotted at the KSRTC Bus Stand, Kayamkulam, and they were arrested. On the basis of the information furnished by the 11th accused, a Wagon-R Car bearing Registration No. KL-29-F-8310 was found parked in the car porch of the house of the 7th accused, and the said car was seized as per Ext.P35 Mahazar. 4.6 On the basis of the disclosure statement given by the 7th accused, and as led by him, a half-sleeve T-shirt and a blue jeans were seized, as per Ext.P24 Mahazar, in the presence of the attestors at 9:45 a.m. on 19.02.2017. 4.7 The accused Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11 were taken in police custody. 4.6 On the basis of the disclosure statement given by the 7th accused, and as led by him, a half-sleeve T-shirt and a blue jeans were seized, as per Ext.P24 Mahazar, in the presence of the attestors at 9:45 a.m. on 19.02.2017. 4.7 The accused Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11 were taken in police custody. On the basis of the confessional statement of the 2nd accused, and as led by him, a sword (MO5) was seized from the “Chira” near to the property of one Mujeed, on 23.02.2017, as per Ext.P11 Mahazar. On the basis of the confessional statement of Arunchandh (A3), and as led by him, a sword (MO9) was seized from the “Chira” near to the property of one Ibrahim Kutty, on 24.02.2017, as per Ext.P25 Mahazar. On the basis of the confessional statement of the 6th accused, and as led b y him, a sword (MO8) was seized from the property of one Sukumara Pillai, on 24.02.2017, as per Ext.P30 Mahazar. On the basis of the confessional statement of the 5th accused, and as led by him, a sword (MO7) was seized from the property of one Yashodharan, on 24.02.2017, as per Ext.P10 Mahazar. On the basis of the confessional statement of the 3rd accused, and as led by him, the Kaily (MO21) worn by him at the time of the occurrence was seized from a Cemetery near to the Malankara Ice Plant as per Ext.P26 Mahazar. On the basis of the confessional statement of the 5th accused, and as led by him, the T-shirt (MO23) worn by him was seized from the Cemetery near to the Malankara Ice Plant as per Ext.P27 Mahazar. On the basis of the confessional statement of the 2nd accused, and as led by him, a half-sleeve T-shirt (MO19) worn by him was seized from a property near to the Cemetery as per Ext.P28 Mahazar. On the basis of the confessional statement of the 6th accused, and as led by him, the T-shirt (MO25) worn by him was seized from the “Rakhi Bhavanam” House as per Ext.P29 Mahazar. On the basis of the disclosure statement given by the 8th accused, and as led by him, a shirt (MO39) worn by him at the time of occurrence was seized from the property of one Krishna Kumar as per Ext.P31 Mahazar. On the basis of the disclosure statement given by the 8th accused, and as led by him, a shirt (MO39) worn by him at the time of occurrence was seized from the property of one Krishna Kumar as per Ext.P31 Mahazar. On the basis of the disclosure statement given by the 10th accused, and as led by him, a Yamaha FZ bike bearing Registration No. KL-29-F-5714 (MO12) was seized from the shed inside the Chandhu Bhavanam House as per Ext.P23 Mahazar on 26.02.2017. The said bike was allegedly used by the accused No.3 to reach the place of occurrence. The investigation revealed that it was on this motorbike that accused Nos. 1 and 2 were brought to t he scene of crime by the 3rd accused. While in custody, Akhil Ashok (A8) is alleged to have disclosed that one pipe (MO3) and a sword (MO10) handed over to him by Sudheesh (A1) had been concealed by him among the bushes near to the Government LP School, and based on the said confession, the steel pipe and the sword was recovered in the presence of witnesses, as per Ext.P32 Mahazar. The investigation revealed that the weapon was handed over to the 8th accused by the 1st accused after the incident. The items recovered as per the disclosure statement given by accused Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 6 were forwarded to the Court as per Ext.P152 Property List. 4.8 The 7th accused, while in custody, is stated to have disclosed that the bike bearing registration No. KL 29K 7750 was kept in the back side of a house near to Padavalyam Junction, and as led by him, MO 14 Passion Pro bike bearing registration No. KL 29K 7750 was seized as per Ext.P33 Mahazar. In the course of investigation it was revealed that MO14 Bike was one in which PW2 was travelling on the date of incident and after attacking him, the bike was taken away by the 7th accused to flee from the spot. While in custody, Manu (A7) is alleged to have disclosed that one sword (MO11) had been concealed by him in the property of one Radhakrishna Pillai, and based on the above disclosure, the the sword was recovered in the presence of witnesses, as per Ext.P43 Mahazar. The weapons which were seized on the basis of the disclosure were shown to the witnesses and identified. The weapons which were seized on the basis of the disclosure were shown to the witnesses and identified. The weapons were also shown to the doctor who conducted the autopsy and his opinion was sought. 4.9 When PW1 was further questioned, he is stated to have said that the name of the 4th accused was wrongly mentioned as Sarath while furnishing the FI statement, and that his actual name is Sanu. 4.10 Though an attempt was made to locate the Activa scooter used by the 5th accused, in which the accused Nos. 4 and 6 had come to the Oottuparamabu Railway cross, it was not successful. 4.11 Thereafter, the investigation was taken over by PW97, the Circle Inspector of Police, Chengannur, on the strength of the order passed by the District Police Chief, Alappuzha. On 21.2.2017, he took charge as Circle Inspector of Police, Harippad. On 4.3.2017, the officer received information about the presence of the 4th accused at Vandanam and at 7 pm on the same day, he was taken into custody. His arrest was recorded at 8.10 pm as per Ext.P163 arrest memo. In addition to arrest and recovery at the instance of the acquitted accused, he also seized the PN Exchange register revealing the happenings at the Oottuparambu Railway Cross. The sketch of the scene was prepared by the Village Officer and the same was forwarded to Court. He stated that the auto driver who had shifted the deceased from the scene of crime to the Hospital could not be located or identified. He stated that the seized items were forwarded to the Forensic Science Lab for the purpose of analysis and the report was later forwarded to him along with a covering letter. Ext.P212(a) is the report of analysis. After the conclusion of the investigation, the final report was laid before the jurisdictional Magistrate. Committal proceedings 5. Committal proceedings were initiated by the learned Magistrate as C.P. No. 61 of 2017. The case was subsequently committed to the Sessions Court, Alappuzha, and later made over to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge–I, Mavelikkara, for trial and disposal. The 1st accused was absconding from the stage of investigation itself; hence, the trial proceeded against accused Nos. 2 to 16. Trial 6. The case was subsequently committed to the Sessions Court, Alappuzha, and later made over to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge–I, Mavelikkara, for trial and disposal. The 1st accused was absconding from the stage of investigation itself; hence, the trial proceeded against accused Nos. 2 to 16. Trial 6. On the side of the prosecution, 98 witnesses were examined as PWs 1 to 98, and through them, Exhibits P1 to P215 were produced and marked. Material Objects (MO1 to MO71) were also identified and marked in evidence. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the incriminating circumstances arising therefrom were put to the accused under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. All the accused denied the incriminating materials alleged against them. On the side of the defence, seven witnesses (DW1 to DW7) were examined, and Exts.D1 to D29 were produced and marked in evidence. The Findings of the Trial Court 7. The learned Sessions Judge arrived at the finding of guilt by relying extensively on the testimony of PW1 and PW2, the eyewitnesses, the oral dying declaration made by the deceased to PW1, the application of the doctrine of “last seen together,” and the corroborative scientific and physical evidence. 7.1 The Court placed implicit reliance on the evidence of PW1, particularly his identification of A1 to A6 and A8 as the persons who chased his brother, and found his version that he later discovered Jishnu grievously injured inside the Manjathappally house to be credible. The testimony of PW1 was held to be corroborated by the evidence of PWs 3, 11, and 13. 7.2 The oral dying declaration in which Jishnu named A1 (Sudheesh), A2 (Ambili), A4 (Sanu), A5 (Pradeep), A6 (Rahul), and A8 (Swarnappan) as his assailants to PW1 was found to be voluntary and reliable. To conclude that the deceased was capable of making such a declaration, the Court relied on the medical evidence of PWs 84 and DW2, who confirmed that despite sustaining severe injuries, the victim could have remained conscious and spoken. 7.3 The “last seen together” doctrine was also applied, as Jishnu was last seen fleeing from the railway crossing with A1 to A6 and A8 pursuing him. It was held that the brief interval between the chase and his being found dead rendered the possibility of another perpetrator impossible. 7.3 The “last seen together” doctrine was also applied, as Jishnu was last seen fleeing from the railway crossing with A1 to A6 and A8 pursuing him. It was held that the brief interval between the chase and his being found dead rendered the possibility of another perpetrator impossible. The accused’s failure to explain these circumstances was held to further strengthen the presumption of guilt. 7.4 The weapons used in the crime were recovered based on voluntary disclosure statements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, MO5 (A2’s sword), MO9 (A3’s sword), MO6 (A4’s sword), MO7 (A5’s sword), MO8 (A6’s sword), and MO3 (A8’s axe-like weapon), each bearing human blood of group ‘O,’ matching that of the deceased, as confirmed by the FSL report (Ext. P212) and DNA analysis. Bloodstained clothes worn by A2, A3, A5, A6, and A8 were also recovered, further linking them to the murder. 7.5 It was held that the evidence established that after Jishnu sought refuge inside the Manjathappally house, the accused forcibly entered by breaking open the door with stones and other objects, constituting house trespass in order to commit an offence punishable with death, thereby attracting Section 449 IPC . 7.6 The Court rejected the defence contention regarding omissions in the FIR, holding that PW1, being in a state of trauma, could not be expected to furnish exhaustive details, and found no credible evidence supporting the claim that the assailants wore masks. 7.7 As regards A7, the Court found independent proof of his guilt for the attempted murder of PW2 (Suraj). PW2, an injured witness whose testimony was held to carry weight, was relied upon to hold that A7 hacked him twice with a sword, a version corroborated by medical records (Ext.P57) showing grievous injuries consistent with an intent to kill under Section 307 IPC . The weapon used by A7 (MO11) was recovered pursuant to his disclosure, and FSL analysis confirmed that it bore human blood of group ‘A’ matching the blood type of PW2. Contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants 8. Sri.P.Vijaya Bhanu, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the accused Nos. 2 to 5 submitted that the reliance placed by the learned Sessions Judge on the evidence tendered by PWs 1 and 2, who are projected as witnesses and had occasion to see the first part of the incident, is clearly erroneous. Sri.P.Vijaya Bhanu, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the accused Nos. 2 to 5 submitted that the reliance placed by the learned Sessions Judge on the evidence tendered by PWs 1 and 2, who are projected as witnesses and had occasion to see the first part of the incident, is clearly erroneous. According to the learned counsel, a proper appreciation of the evidence of the said witnesses would reveal that their testimony was riddled with embellishments, improvements and improbabilities. By referring to Ext.P1 FI Statement and Ext.P89 FIR, it is submitted by the learned counsel that there are numerous interlineations and additions which would make the alleged prompt lodging of the statement improbable. Though the Police Station admittedly was situated just 25 meters away from the court premises, the FIR which was registered at 4.18 p.m. has reached the court only at 7.30 p.m. The learned Senior counsel would then point out that the defence was able to bring out numerous inconsistencies and omissions through PW87, the Officer who had recorded the First Information. The learned counsel would then point out that in the remand applications, which were marked as Exts.D13 to D15, there is absolutely no mention of the alleged dying declaration. Relying on the observations of this Court in Golden Satheesan v. State of Kerala , 2012 KHC 25 it is submitted by the learned counsel that it cannot be believed that the deceased would have given a vivid description of the assailants and the manner in which the injuries were inflicted. It is further submitted that in Ext.P57 wound certificate of PW2 (Suraj) prepared by PW75, the Medical Officer attached to the Taluk Headquarters Hospital, Harippad, stated that the alleged cause of injury is that a group of persons had attacked using swords. PW2 was well aware of the identity of the accused and that being the case, the non-mention of their names first in point of time to the Doctor is fatal. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the procedure adopted by the learned Sessions Judge in getting the weapon as well as the clothes identified by the witnesses is erroneous. He has also raised serious exceptions to the evidence of recovery at the instance of the accused and it is urged that no reliance can be placed on the same. He has also raised serious exceptions to the evidence of recovery at the instance of the accused and it is urged that no reliance can be placed on the same. According to the learned counsel, the 2nd accused was arrested on 11.02.2017 and recovery of his jeans was effected on 12.2.2017. However, MO5 sword and MO19 T-shirt were recovered only on 23.02.2017 and 25.02.2017 after a substantial lapse of time. This, according to the learned counsel, would reveal that the recovery has not been effected in a truthful manner after complying with the procedure. He has also referred to the evidence of PW37 (Vishanth) and it is urged that the evidence of the said witness be beset with inconsistencies. Insofar as PW72 is concerned, it is submitted that the said witness was questioned only in the month of April, 2017 and that being the case, the court ought to have held that the citing of the above witness was to fill up the lacunae in the prosecution case. 8.1. Sri. B. Raman Pillai, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the accused Nos. 7 and 8 submitted that the learned Sessions Judge had convicted the said accused without any legal evidence. He would point out that the version of PW1 in the FI statement furnished on 10.2.2017 was grossly embellished at the stage of evidence and this aspect of the matter was overlooked by the Sessions Judge. He would point o ut that the version of the prime witnesses is that they had previous acquaintance with all the accused and if that be the case, there was no reason why the names and other details of the accused were not furnished at the initial stage itself. He would minutely take us through the evidence and highlight the inconsistencies and the embellishments and argued that the witnesses who improved their version at the stage of evidence cannot be relied upon. Reliance is placed on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Yudhishtir v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1971) 3 SCC 436 and it was argued that when the evidence of the witness was substantially at variance with the version given by them to the police at the earliest occasion, the evidence ought to be reckoned as false and unacceptable. Reliance is placed on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Yudhishtir v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1971) 3 SCC 436 and it was argued that when the evidence of the witness was substantially at variance with the version given by them to the police at the earliest occasion, the evidence ought to be reckoned as false and unacceptable. Reliance is also placed on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in State of Orissa v. Brahmananda Nanda, (1976) 4 SCC 288 and it is argued that the non-disclosure of the name of the assailants at the earliest opportunity is a serious infirmity and would destroy the credibility of the witness. The learned Senior counsel would then refer to the observations of the Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raghuvir Singh, (2018) 13 SCC 732 and it is argued that the omission of the first informant to name all the assailants is an important aspect and such omission would render the account of the witness highly improbable. The learned counsel urged that a proper evaluation of the evidence of PW1 would reveal that he had no occasion to witness any part of the incident nor he had any occasion to witness the infliction of injuries. The identification by the said witness of the clothes worn by the accused and the weapons used by them are concocted versions developed much after the incident. The learned counsel submits that even at the time of inquest, the name and presence of accused Nos. 7 and 8 were not mentioned. Insofar recovery is concerned, the learned Senior counsel submitted that the accused No. 7 was arrested on 18.02.2017 and the 8th accused was arrested on 15.02.2017. Their custody was obtained from 23.02.2017 to 25.02.2017 and it was during this window period that recovery of weapons alleged to have been used by A2, A6, A5 and A3 were made. However, insofar as A7 and A8 are concerned, though their clothes were recovered, the weapons were not. Later, the custody of A7 and A8 were obtained from 25.02.2017 to 02.03.2017 and it was during this period that bikes and weapons were recovered. It is submitted that the recovery was planted by the prosecution to falsely implicate the accused Nos. 7 and 8. Later, the custody of A7 and A8 were obtained from 25.02.2017 to 02.03.2017 and it was during this period that bikes and weapons were recovered. It is submitted that the recovery was planted by the prosecution to falsely implicate the accused Nos. 7 and 8. Insofar as the injury inflicted on PW2 by A7 is concerned, the learned counsel invited the attention of this Court to the evidence of PW75 (Dr. Shyla), who had examined PW2 at 12.20 pm on 10.02.2017. In Ext.P17 treatment certificate, all that is mentioned is that a group of persons inflicted injuries with a sword. It is submitted that though PW2 was discharged from the hospital on 24.10.2017, his statement was recorded only after much delay. It is submitted that on that count alone, the evidence tendered by PW2 is to be ignored. Finally, it is submitted that the injury suffered by PW2 is a cut on the common extensor muscle which cannot attract the offence under Section 307 of the IPC . 8.2. Sri. Renjith B. Marar, the learned counsel appearing for accused No.6 supported the submissions advanced by the learned senior counsel appearing for the other accused. He would point out that the prosecution has come forward with the contention that Jishnu had stated the cause of death to PW11 (Ratheesh). However, all that he had stated to Ratheesh was that Sudheesh (A1) and Ambili (A2) were responsible for the injuries. According to the learned counsel, this version of PW11 is inconsistent with the version of PW1 which incidentally is at variance with the version in the FI Statement. H e pointed out that the 6th accused was arrested on 11.02.2017 but the recovery of MO8 (Sword) and MO27 (Kaily) at the instance of the accused were effected only on 24.02.2017 and 25.02.2017. He urged that PW49 (Rahul) who stood as an attestor to Ext.P29 Mahazar prepared at the time of seizure of the T-shirt is a stock witness. The learned counsel would further submit that the sample of blood and b one marrow of the deceased was taken by the Doctor who conducted the postmortem and the same was in the possession of the Investigating Officer till 15.02.2017. The learned counsel would further submit that the sample of blood and b one marrow of the deceased was taken by the Doctor who conducted the postmortem and the same was in the possession of the Investigating Officer till 15.02.2017. The learned counsel further contended that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the chain of custody and hence, n o reliance can be placed on the blood analysis and the DNA analysis on which, profuse reliance was placed by the learned Sessions Judge. The learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Harbeer Singh v. Sheeshpal and Ors. (2016) 16 SCC 418 and argued that material omissions which may amount to contradictions would create serious doubts about the truthfulness of witness testimony. Reliance is also placed on Sibu @ Thampi v. State of Kerala, 2024 KHC OnLine 713 and it is argued that the unexplained delay in recording the statement of a key witness renders testimony unsafe for reliance. The learned counsel would then refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in Prakash Nishad @ Kewat Zinak Nishad v. State of Maharashtra , 2023 (16) SCC 357 and it is submitted that the necessity of maintaining chain of custody and avoiding delay in sending samples for analysis would diminish the evidentiary value. Contentions advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor: 9. Smt. T.V.Neema, the learned Public Prosecutor, submitted that in the case on hand, the first information statement was lodged promptly within two hours of the commencement o f the incident and the FIR was registered at 2.30 p.m. The FIR reached the Court at 7.30 p.m., on the same day. There is no reason to disbelieve the eye-witness testimony of PW1 who has narrated in meticulous detail the manner in which the incident had commenced and how it ended. PW1 has identified the persons who had chased his brother with weapons. His presence at the Manjathappally House immediately after the incident was corroborated by PW3, PW11, PW13, and DW6. It is submitted that the deceased had made an oral dying declaration to his brother wherein he has named the assailants. PW1 has identified the persons who had chased his brother with weapons. His presence at the Manjathappally House immediately after the incident was corroborated by PW3, PW11, PW13, and DW6. It is submitted that the deceased had made an oral dying declaration to his brother wherein he has named the assailants. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly found the dying declaration true and voluntary, particularly in view of the medical testimony of P W84 and DW2, who had confirmed that despite sustaining severe injuries, it was possible for the victim to remain conscious, remember the event and speak, which supports the credibility of the dying declaration. It is further submitted that the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 clearly established that Jishnu was last seen running away from the railway crossing immediately followed by A1 to A6 and A8, who were all armed. It is further submitted that the recovery of weapons used by the accused based on their disclosure statement and the FSL Report which confirmed that the recovered objects contained human blood belonging to the same group as that of the deceased is yet another strong piece of evidence linking the accused with the murder of Jishnu. It is submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has properly evaluated the evidence and has rightly entered into a finding of guilt and no interference is warranted. 10. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the entire records. We have also perused the impugned judgment. The death of Jishnu- Whether homicidal 11. The first question is whether the prosecution has established that the death of Jishnu was a case of homicide. It would be worthwhile to note at this juncture that the defence does not dispute that Jishnu met an homicidal death after being chased and attacked inside the home of PW3. Their only contention is that the appellants are not the assailants. 11.1 In order to prove that the death was a case of homicide, in addition to PWs 1 to 3, the prosecution has examined the Doctor who conducted the autopsy examination on the body of Jishnu. When examined as PW84, the Forensic Surgeon testified that on 11.02.2017, while serving as Professor of Forensic Medicine and Police Surgeon at the Government Medical College, Alappuzha, she had conducted the post-mortem examination on Jishnu’s body. Ext.P73 is the post-mortem certificate. When examined as PW84, the Forensic Surgeon testified that on 11.02.2017, while serving as Professor of Forensic Medicine and Police Surgeon at the Government Medical College, Alappuzha, she had conducted the post-mortem examination on Jishnu’s body. Ext.P73 is the post-mortem certificate. She noted 36 incised injuries on the body of the deceased. On examination, PW84 opined that death was due to the multiple injuries sustained, specifically injury Nos. 1 to 19, which were cumulatively sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. When MO3, MOs 5 to 11, being the weapons recovered in the case b ased on the disclosure statements of the accused, were shown to the Doctor, she examined them and opined that the ante-mortem injuries observed could indeed have been caused by weapons of such nature. From a conjoint reading of the evidence of PW1 and PW84, the Doctor who conducted the autopsy, the only irresistible conclusion that can be drawn is that the death of Jishnu was clearly and undoubtedly homicidal. No serious contentions were advanced before us to conclude otherwise. Evaluation of the evidence 12. In order to prove the occurrence, the prosecution mainly relies on the evidence of PWs 1 to PW3, PW11, 13 and PW37. The recovery of weapons and clothes worn by the accused at the time of the occurrence, at the instance of the accused and the detection of the presence of blood of the deceased on it are also strong pieces of evidence relied on by the prosecution to connect the appellants with the offence. 12.1. We find that the law was set in motion i n this case on the strength of the First Information Statement (FIS) given by PW1 to the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Haripad, at 2:00 p.m. on the very date of the alleged occurrence. During examination before the Court, PW1, the elder brother of the deceased, and who was present with him immediately prior to the incident, has narrated the sequence of events with meticulous detail and precision. 12.2. PW1 stated that the deceased, Jishnu, was his brother. He stated that every year, Jishnu used to undertake a 21-day vritham and participate in Kavadiyattom (a ritual procession) conducted in connection with the annual festival of Sree Subrahmanya Swamy Temple, Haripad. On 10.02.2017, he had similarly performed the Kavadiyattom. 12.2. PW1 stated that the deceased, Jishnu, was his brother. He stated that every year, Jishnu used to undertake a 21-day vritham and participate in Kavadiyattom (a ritual procession) conducted in connection with the annual festival of Sree Subrahmanya Swamy Temple, Haripad. On 10.02.2017, he had similarly performed the Kavadiyattom. After completing t he ritual, Jishnu took a bath in the temple pond, offered prayers, and thereafter, along with PW1 and his friend Suraj (PW2), proceeded to Karuvatta Gokula Ashramam to collect their bikes, which had been parked near the waiting shed in front of the L.P. School adjacent to the Ashramam. PW1 and Jishnu then mounted the Avenger motorbike bearing registration No. KL-29/K-6921 which was ridden by PW1. Suraj rode his Passion Pro bike bearing registration No. KL-29/K-7750. When they reached near the Oottuparambu railway gate around 11:40 a.m., the gate was closed. PW1 switched off his bike and began browsing Facebook on his mobile phone while Jishnu playfully tapped his back rhythmically. Suraj too stopped his bike on the left side and was looking at his phone. At that time, PW1 conversed with one Santhosh, who was waiting on another bike stopped on the right side. Suddenly, PW1 heard a commotion f rom behind. Turning around, he saw around twelve people approaching on four motorbikes. The first vehicle, a Yamaha bike, was ridden by Arunchand @ Arun (A3), with Sudheesh (A1) and Ambili (A2) as pillion riders. The second vehicle, a Honda Activa scooter, was ridden by Pradeep (A5) with Rahul (A6) and Sanu (A4) as pillion riders. A Pulsar bike ridden by Vishnulal (A12) followed, carrying Manu @ Kanchappan (A7) and Akhil Asok @ Swarnappan (A8). Finally, another Honda Activa scooter ridden by Vaisakh (A13) arrived, carrying Prabhath Zacharia (A9) and Jayajith (A10). All of them were armed with deadly weapons such as swords, steel pipes, and axe-like implements. Upon arrival, the 1st accused, Sudheesh (A1), shouted an exhortation to “hack and kill.” Alarmed, Jishnu pushed PW1 aside and urged him to flee. PW1 fell along with his bike, while Jishnu ran onto the railway track heading east. PW2 Suraj fled southward along the track. PW1, while escaping, fell onto a heap of stones but saw Rahul (A6) and Pradeep (A5) pursuing him with swords. He also saw Jishnu jumping over a fence, wearing only underwear. PW1 fell along with his bike, while Jishnu ran onto the railway track heading east. PW2 Suraj fled southward along the track. PW1, while escaping, fell onto a heap of stones but saw Rahul (A6) and Pradeep (A5) pursuing him with swords. He also saw Jishnu jumping over a fence, wearing only underwear. Jishnu was signaling him to continue running and make good his escape. At the same time, Sudheesh (A1), Ambili (A2), Arunchand (A3), and Sanu (A4) were chasing Jishnu with swords in hand. 12.3. PW1 then contacted his uncle Sasi over the phone but could not reach him. He called another relative, Manu Annan, and informed him of the attack. Acting on Manu’s advice, he went in search of Jishnu. When PW1 reached behind a house named “Manjathappally House,” he heard Jishnu’s screams from its kitchen area. He immediately telephoned his uncle again and reported that a group had chased and attacked Jishnu, and that he was now inside Manjathappally House, grievously injured. On reaching the front of the house, PW1 saw two women standing on the northern side of the courtyard, terrified and weeping, with a child beside them. He entered the house and noticed bloodstains on the sit-out and hall walls, shattered windowpanes, and blood oozing down the staircase. Inside the kitchen lay a pool of blood, and Jishnu was found slumped on the floor with multiple severe injuries, including one on his left hand. PW1 saw his brother trying to lift the injured hand using his right hand. On seeing Vishnu, Jishnu pleaded that the blood from his face be wiped off and told him that he would not survive. The injured asked PW1 to record his statement using his mobile phone but since the phone had no charge, he could not do that. Jishnu then proceeded to narrate his version to Vishnu. He told PW1 that he ran to the first floor of the house and the assailants chased him. They broke open the door and entered the house. After breaking in, A1 (Sudheesh) cut him on his right shoulder with a sword. He again cut on the same area with the weapon. When he asked A1 as to why he was attacking him and they could settle the issues, A1 responded stating that he had nothing to say to him and that he only wanted to see him dead. He again cut on the same area with the weapon. When he asked A1 as to why he was attacking him and they could settle the issues, A1 responded stating that he had nothing to say to him and that he only wanted to see him dead. When he fell down, all the accused cut him with weapons. He said Ambili (A2) inflicted a cut injury on his hand and Arun hacked him on his leg. He also added that Rahul (A6), Pradeep (A5), Sanu (A4) and Swarnappan (A8) inflicted cut injuries. PW1 then rushed out to seek help. A local resident approached, and PW1 requested a vehicle, but the man opted to call the Police. Shortly thereafter, Ratheesh, a neighbour, arrived, followed by PW1’s uncle Sasi on a scooter. Together, they entered the house and lifted Jishnu, who was barely conscious, to a sitting position before laying him back down when he began to collapse. Soon, other relatives, Sanoosh, Vinod (brother-in-law), and Vishnu arrived. They wrapped Jishnu in a bedsheet from the sofa and transported him to the Medical College Hospital, Vandanam, in an autorickshaw. By then, a large crowd and the Police had gathered at the scene. 12.4. At the hospital, PW1 learned of his brother’s death and that Suraj (PW2) had also been attacked by the same group. PW1 stated that the motive behind the crime stemmed from a prior incident: one Ullas, a friend of the accused, had been murdered, and rumours spread that Jishnu had celebrated his death by bursting crackers. Additionally, Jishnu and his friends had previously quarrelled with Ambili (A2) near Vijaya Bank, Karuvatta, during which A2 sustained a stab injury. There had also been an earlier altercation where A1, A2, and Ullas attempted to create disturbances during a temple music program, which Jishnu had opposed. PW1 alleged that, to avenge these incidents, the accused conspired and committed the present offence. During testimony, PW1 affirmed that he was acquainted with all the accused except A12 and A13, as most were his neighbours or former schoolmates. He identified accused Nos. 1–10, 12, and 13 in Court and detailed the specific weapons each h eld. The material objects (MOs 1–29) were identified and marked accordingly, including the weapons, motorbikes, clothes of the accused, and the attire worn by the deceased at the time of the incident. He identified accused Nos. 1–10, 12, and 13 in Court and detailed the specific weapons each h eld. The material objects (MOs 1–29) were identified and marked accordingly, including the weapons, motorbikes, clothes of the accused, and the attire worn by the deceased at the time of the incident. 12.5 In cross-examination, PW1 admitted that he and his brother had earlier been accused in criminal cases and had been in judicial custody. He acknowledged knowing certain local DYFI leaders and having visited one Anas Ali, the District Secretary, prior to giving his statement. He also conceded that some details, including the number of vehicles involved, certain identifications, and descriptions of clothing, were not included in his initial FIS due to panic and confusion at the time. However, he maintained unequivocally that he had clearly seen A12 and A13 at the Oottuparambu railway crossing, later identifying them at the Police Station, during photo identification by the Tahsildar, and again during the trial. He also reaffirmed his eyewitness account that the accused arrived armed with deadly weapons, attacked Jishnu, and that none of them were wearing masks. We will deal with the contentions raised by the defence to assail the version of PW1 at a later stage. 12.6 The next witness examined by the prosecution is Suraj (PW2). He stated that the deceased, Jishnu, and his brother Vishnu were his close friends. On 10.02.2017, the Haripad Sree Subrahmanya Swamy Temple was celebrating its annual festival, during which Jishnu participated in Kavadiyattom, a religious ritual. PW2 assisted Jishnu in performing the same. After completing the Kavadiyattom, Jishnu, PW1, and PW2 went to Gokula Ashramam to take their motorbikes parked in the waiting shed in front of the L.P. School nearby. Vishnu (PW1) took his Avenger motorbike with Jishnu seated on the pillion, while PW2 took a Passion Pro bike belonging to Jishnu’s friend. While proceeding home through the Karuvatta Vazhiyambalam – Oottuparambu road, they reached the southern side of the Oottuparambu railway crossing, which was closed at the time. As they waited, they noticed one Santhosh standing on the eastern side of the road, and Jishnu engaged him in conversation, while PW1 was looking at his mobile phone. Suddenly, PW2 heard a commotion and the sound of accelerating bikes from behind. As they waited, they noticed one Santhosh standing on the eastern side of the road, and Jishnu engaged him in conversation, while PW1 was looking at his mobile phone. Suddenly, PW2 heard a commotion and the sound of accelerating bikes from behind. When he turned around, he saw about twelve persons arriving on two motorbikes and two Activa scooters, all armed with deadly weapons such as swords, steel pipes, and axe-like implements. 12.7. The first vehicle, a Yamaha bike, was ridden by Arunchand (A3) with Sudheesh (A1) and Ambili (A2) as pillion riders. Behind them, came a Honda Activa scooter ridden by Pradeep (A5), carrying Rahul (A6) and Sanu (A4) on the pillion. Following them was a Pulsar bike ridden by Vishnulal (A12) with Manu @ Kanchappan (A7) and Akhil @ Swarnappan ( A8) seated behind. The last was another Activa scooter ridden by an unidentified person, with Prabhath (A9) and Jayajith (A10) on the pillion. PW2 stated that he did not know the rider of the last scooter or A12 prior to the incident but was acquainted with all other accused. PW2 categorically identified all the accused, including A12 and A13, before the Court. He testified that upon seeing the group, Jishnu immediately got down from the bike and ran eastward, while Vishnu (PW1) also fled. The accused Nos. 1 to 6 chased them with weapons. PW2 moved towards the eastern side of a metal road, when A8 (Akhil @ Swarnappan) struck him on the back with the blunt side of an axe-like weapon before continuing to chase Jishnu. Then A7 (Manu @ Kanchappan) hacked below his left knee with a sword, causing him to fall into a nearby property. Subsequently, A9 (Prabhath), A10 (Jayajith), and A13 (Vaisakh) struck him on the back and shoulder, while A12 (Vishnulal) beat him with the blunt side of a similar weapon and then struck PW1’s bike with it. A7 again attacked PW2 on the hip and also damaged the Passion Pro bike before riding away on it, followed by A9, A10, A12, and A13. 12.8. Soon after, PW2’s relative Santhosh arrived and tied a towel around his wound. Another friend, Visanth, also reached the spot, and Santhosh informed him that Jishnu had been chased by men with weapons. Visanth then ran in the same direction to look for Jishnu. 12.8. Soon after, PW2’s relative Santhosh arrived and tied a towel around his wound. Another friend, Visanth, also reached the spot, and Santhosh informed him that Jishnu had been chased by men with weapons. Visanth then ran in the same direction to look for Jishnu. An autorickshaw i nitially refused to take PW2 to the hospital, but soon thereafter another auto driven by Sunil who was known to PW2, took him to hospital. W hen someone nearby shouted that the assailants were returning, PW2 became terrified and he asked the driver to take him home. While near the post office, heavy bleeding began from his hand, and Sunil turned the autorickshaw towards the Government Hospital, Haripad. From there, PW2 was referred to t he Medical College Hospital, Vandanam, where he was admitted as an inpatient. On the way, he came to know that Jishnu had been murdered. 12.9. PW2 stated that he underwent surgery as the fingers of his left hand had lost mobility. He w as later referred to Medical College Hospital, Kottayam, where the m obility of his hand was restored. D uring treatment at Vandanam, he was unable to speak. PW2 testified that he bore no personal enmity toward the accused and that he was attacked solely for being a friend of Jishnu, against whom the accused nursed deep animosity. He stated that the accused believed Jishnu was involved in the murder of their friend Ullas and had celebrated his death by bursting crackers. There had also been a quarrel between Jishnu and the accused during a temple festival two years earlier. He identified accused Nos. 2 to 13 in court during trial. He also identified two axe-like weapons, MO3 and MO4, used by A8 and A12, respectively, and the sword used by A7, MO11, as the weapon that caused his injuries. He identified MO1 and MO2, the steel pipes used by A9 and A10 to beat him. PW2 stated that at the time of the incident, he was wearing a kavi dhoti and shirt, though the black dhoti shown to him in C ourt, MO29, was the same he had worn. He explained that his bloodstained shirt was torn and removed by the Doctor and he was unaware of its whereabouts. He also identified MO18 as the rose-coloured dhoti worn by Jishnu. He explained that his bloodstained shirt was torn and removed by the Doctor and he was unaware of its whereabouts. He also identified MO18 as the rose-coloured dhoti worn by Jishnu. PW2 further testified that A7 was wearing a yellow T-shirt and blue jeans (MOs 30 and 31), A12, a grey T-shirt and track suit (MOs 32 and 33), A10, a green T-shirt and blue jeans (MOs 34 and 35), A9, an ash-coloured shirt and b lack dhoti (MOs 36 and 37), and A8, a saffron dhoti and multi-coloured shirt (MOs 8 and 9). 12.10. Despite rigorous cross-examination, nothing was elicited to discredit PW2’s version. He confirmed that he had been friends with Jishnu and Vishnu for over 23 years. He denied having told the police that he was unable to speak during his treatment at Vandanam Hospital. When asked whether he had told the media that the assailants wore masks or covered their faces with kerchiefs, he denied giving any such statement, though later said he could not remember. He admitted that his police statement was recorded six days after the incident and that he had no prior animosity toward A7. He also admitted not having described the specific features of the weapons or clothing of A7 in his earlier statement. When a suggestion was made that PW2 had not sustained injuries from the spot he described, he vehemently denied it. 12.11 Revathi (PW3), the resident of the Manjathappally House was examined as PW3. Her h usband was serving in the Indian Army at the time of the incident. During the relevant period, she was residing in the Manjathappally house along with her mother-in-law and her four-year-old son. The incident in which Jishnu was murdered occurred inside her house. According to her, on the date of the incident, she was at home as it was a holiday. While she was preparing for the PSC examination in the bedroom on the western side of the ground floor at around 11:45 a.m., she heard the sound of someone running through the property of one Jyothi, situated on the western side of her house. Initially, she thought it was caused by animals and went to her son, who was watching television in the hall, to ensure he did not go outside. Moments later, she heard a loud noise and saw the glass panes of the window near the sit-out shatter. Initially, she thought it was caused by animals and went to her son, who was watching television in the hall, to ensure he did not go outside. Moments later, she heard a loud noise and saw the glass panes of the window near the sit-out shatter. Suddenly, a man wearing only underwear entered the house and tried to lock the front door from inside. Someone outside was simultaneously attempting to push the door open. The man managed to secure the door using the key hanging from it. Frightened, PW3 retreated to the western bedroom with her child. From there, she saw the man standing in the kitchen. As she tried to calm her child, she saw about six to seven men standing outside the western side of the bedroom, armed with swords and axe-like weapons. One of them came near the window and asked, “Where is he?” Under the impression that the man who had entered her house had left, PW3 replied that there was nobody inside and pleaded with the weapon toting strangers not to harm them. She then heard her mother-in-law crying from the western side of the house, saying that only PW3 and her child were inside. The intruders moved towards the northern side of the house. Looking through the window, PW3 saw one man holding a sword and her mother-in-law lying on the car porch. Neighbours Subaidamma and Radha rushed to assist her mother-in-law. Believing the assailants had left, PW3 opened the front door, but six to seven armed men immediately entered again. She then ran outside to her mother-in-law, where Subaidamma, Radha, and one Sudheer were present. Sudheer took the child from her and escorted both PW3 and her mother-in-law to her husband’s ancestral house, about 20 feet away. While proceeding there, PW3 h eard loud noises from her house. When she turned back, she saw two people entering the house and heard someone shout, “Open the door,” followed by a loud cry. She tried contacting the police from Sudheer’s mobile phone but could not connect. She then called the police using her own phone and Radha’s phone. Shortly thereafter, someone said that those who had entered the house had gone. She tried contacting the police from Sudheer’s mobile phone but could not connect. She then called the police using her own phone and Radha’s phone. Shortly thereafter, someone said that those who had entered the house had gone. While standing near a tamarind tree on the way to the family house, she saw a man emerge from the Manjathappally house crying, “It’s my brother!” From the conversation of others present, she understood that the injured person was Jishnu, brother of Vishnu (PW1). Soon after, a person arrived on an Activa scooter, identified by onlookers as Jishnu’s uncle, and later an autorickshaw came in which Jishnu was taken to the hospital, covered with a bedsheet taken from the sofa in her house. The police arrived soon after and instructed her to vacate the house after collecting essential belongings. When she re-entered, she noticed extensive bloodstains. She then left with her child and mother-in-law to her uncle’s house. She also observed that the locks on the door of the eastern first-floor room had been broken. Later, she learned that Jishnu had succumbed to his injuries. PW3 identified the bedsheet (MO17) used to cover Jishnu, a stone pillar (MO40), a hollow brick (MO41), a coconut scraper (MO42) with its blade (MO43), a piece of window glass (MO44), and a towel (MO45) used for her child, all belonging to her household. She also identified MO4 and MO5 (swords) as those seen in the hands of two of t he intruders. PW3 testified that the men appeared to be below 30 years of age but stated she could not identify them. She had seen the intruders from a distance of about five feet and remembered most distinctly the one who asked her, “Where is he?” However, she admitted that she could not recall his identifying features when giving her initial police statement. During cross-examination, PW3 confirmed that she was taken for a test identification parade but could not identify any of the accused. When asked whether the assailants h ad covered their faces, she replied that one among them was wearing a mask and that it was the person who asked her, “Where is he?” She later contradicted herself, stating that she had not seen six or seven persons. When asked whether the assailants h ad covered their faces, she replied that one among them was wearing a mask and that it was the person who asked her, “Where is he?” She later contradicted herself, stating that she had not seen six or seven persons. In re-examination, PW3 admitted that the police had recorded her statement three or four times and that she had not mentioned the presence of any masks in her earlier statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., nor to the Magistrate or Tahsildar during the identification proceedings. 12.12. PW4 is a KSRTC Driver who was residing on the north-western side of the house of PW3. He stated that hearing the noise and screams from the house of PW3, he went there and found the mother-in-law of PW3 lying on the car porch. At that time, his mother Subaida and Radhamani came to the spot. He saw about 6-7 persons standing in the property of PW3. They were carrying swords. He asked them to leave. One of them swung a sword at him and asked him to leave. Then he saw PW3 coming out of the house. Immediately thereafter, the person standing outside rushed inside her house and then he heard loud cries and screams of a person. He did not enter the house as he was overcome by fear. He took PW3, her child and mother-in-law to his property. He continued to hear the screams from PW3’s house. After some time, the persons who had entered the house came out and they left the place. After they had left, he went to PW3’s house and went inside. There was blood all over the house and he found a person lying in a pool of blood in the kitchen. He identified the person as Jishnu. There was no one else present at that point of time. He then went out and called the police and handed over the phone to PW3. PW3 talked to the police and informed them of the incident. Thereafter, the persons who had assembled there covered the deceased in a sheet and took him to the hospital in an autorickshaw. Later, he came to know that Jishnu had died. He stated that the persons who had entered the house were wearing masks and only their eyes were visible. Thereafter, the persons who had assembled there covered the deceased in a sheet and took him to the hospital in an autorickshaw. Later, he came to know that Jishnu had died. He stated that the persons who had entered the house were wearing masks and only their eyes were visible. He also stated that he is not in a position to identify the weapons used by them. Since he did not support the prosecution, permission was granted to the Prosecutor to put questions in the nature of cross-examination by invoking Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act. It was brought out that in his earlier statement he had not stated that the assailants were wearing masks. He denied that he had stated to the police that he could identify the accused at a later stage. He also denied that PW1 had come to the house and he was contradicted by his earlier statement that Vishnu had come and was seen crying while coming out of the house, which portion was marked as Ext.P4. 12.13 PW5 (Shajeela) was the gate keeper at Oottuparambu Railway Cross on 10.02.2017. She stated that her duty time was from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. The Private Number Register maintained in her office was put to her and the same was identified and marked as Ext.P7. She stated that she vividly remembers what had happened on 10.02.2017 on which day, the Thaypooya festival was celebrated. She stated that she was on day duty. At 11.40 a.m., the railway cross was closed as it was the time during which the Ernakulam - Kayamkulam Passenger train passed through the area. While she was sitting in the restroom, she heard the sound of a bike falling down from the southern side of the railway cross. When she looked towards the area from w here the sound had come, she found one person standing on the side of a bike and the other person running towards the east. About 4-5 people were chasing him and they had arms in their possession. Some persons were carrying a stick-like weapon and others were carrying a curved sword seen only in the movies. She stated that immediately she contacted the police by calling 100. Since t he line was busy, she called the Haripad Police Station and informed them about the armed persons and asked them to come immediately to prevent violence. Some persons were carrying a stick-like weapon and others were carrying a curved sword seen only in the movies. She stated that immediately she contacted the police by calling 100. Since t he line was busy, she called the Haripad Police Station and informed them about the armed persons and asked them to come immediately to prevent violence. She stated that the persons who had assembled there did not react. After the train had left, she opened the Railway gate. At about 12.30 p.m., she again closed the railway gate to enable another train to pass through. After the gate was closed, she saw the armed persons returning back with weapons. The person in front was wearing jeans and a T-Shirt. They were found walking through the railway track. From their body language, PW5 noticed that they were between the ages of 20 and 25. She again called the police and informed them of the armed assailants. She stated that she heard the sound of the assailants beating on the bike. When she opened the gate, she heard people saying that some person was inflicted with cut injuries. Later she saw the police personnel going towards the east. She then saw one person who was found to be bleeding being taken in an autorickshaw. She also stated that she was informed that the person who was taken in the autorickshaw passed away and that the persons who were attacked by the assailants were brothers. She identified MO5 as the weapon found in the hands of one of the assailants. She was however not in a position to identify any of the accused standing in the dock. 12.14. PW6 to PW9 were neighbours of PW3, who according to the prosecution had reached the spot in the course of the incident. However they did not support the case of the prosecution. PW9 is one Sivarajan Kurup who is stated to be running a tea shop situated near the Oottuparambu railway crossing. According to him, he had prior acquaintance with the deceased, Jishnu, as well as with PW2, the injured witness. He deposed that on 10.02.2017, at approximately 11.30 a.m., while he was preparing snacks in his shop, he heard a commotion outside. On hearing the clamour, he stepped out of the shop and observed 6–7 individuals running behind another person. According to him, he had prior acquaintance with the deceased, Jishnu, as well as with PW2, the injured witness. He deposed that on 10.02.2017, at approximately 11.30 a.m., while he was preparing snacks in his shop, he heard a commotion outside. On hearing the clamour, he stepped out of the shop and observed 6–7 individuals running behind another person. He further stated that the group was seen running towards the eastern side of the railway crossing, along the pathway leading to the Manjathappally house. He also noticed that the assailants were armed with lethal weapons. PW9 stated that he could not identify any of the individuals involved as they ran past. After witnessing this, he returned to his shop to continue preparing snacks. A short while later, upon stepping out again, he saw the same individuals, who had earlier run towards the east, returning. At that time, they were holding weapons, and on reaching n ear the railway crossing, they ran towards the western side on noticing the police. PW9 further testified that he subsequently came to know that Jishnu had been attacked inside the Manjathappally house and later succumbed to his injuries. He also learned that another person had been assaulted on the southern side of the railway crossing. According to PW9, he later saw Jishnu being brought in an auto-rickshaw, but he looked only once, as the sight was too distressing. However, he did not state anything about the accused. 12.15 The next witness of some relevance is Vishnu. While examined as PW13, he deposed that on the date of the alleged incident, one Manu had telephoned him and informed him that certain persons were running behind Jishnu. Upon receiving this information, PW13 proceeded to the Oottuparambu railway crossing and observed several individuals heading towards the Manjathappally house. According to his testimony, he followed them to the said house, and on entering, he saw Jishnu lying on the kitchen floor in a grievously hacked condition. PW13 stated that although he attempted to lift Jishnu, he was unable to do so. He then stepped outside the house and called his friends, Vinod and Sanosh, and together they transported Jishnu to the hospital in an auto-rickshaw. On their way to the hospital, when they reached near the railway crossing, one Kumar arrived in a car; Jishnu was then transferred into the said vehicle and taken to the hospital. He then stepped outside the house and called his friends, Vinod and Sanosh, and together they transported Jishnu to the hospital in an auto-rickshaw. On their way to the hospital, when they reached near the railway crossing, one Kumar arrived in a car; Jishnu was then transferred into the said vehicle and taken to the hospital. According to PW13, until they reached Purakkad Junction, Jishnu continued to show signs of movement. However, upon reaching the Medical College Hospital, the attending doctor examined Jishnu and declared him dead. PW13 further testified that shortly thereafter, another injured person, Suraj, was also brought to the same hospital. PW13 added that when he reached the Manjathappally house, Vishnu, the brother of the deceased Jishnu, was present at the entrance of the house. 12.16 PW19, is one Sanosh. He stated that he reached the Manjathappally house immediately after hearing about the incident. According to him, several people had gathered in and around the courtyard of the house. He stated that Vishnu, the brother of Jishnu, was found standing in the courtyard, and crying. He along with h is neighbor Vinod, went inside the house and found Jishnu lying on the kitchen floor with cut injuries on his body. He along with Vishnu and Vinod covered the body with a sheet and took the body outside the house. An autorickshaw came and Jishnu was taken t o the hospital in the said vehicle. When they reached the Railway cross, Kumar brought his car and the body was shifted to the car to be taken to the hospital. When he asked PW1 what had happened to Jishnu, PW1 replied that “they had attacked Pappaji” Pappaji being the nickname of Jishnu. In cross examination, he stated that several persons had assembled at the Manjathappaly house, where the incident occurred. 12.17 PW21 (Sasikumar), is a taxi driver by profession . He stated that he has previous acquaintance with the deceased Jishnu as well as the injured Suraj. PW21 stated that he operates a Mahindra Verito car bearing Registration No. KL-29/F-2623 as a taxi in Ernakulam. On the date of the alleged incident, he had travelled to the Alappuzha Special Branch Office for matters relating to his passport verification. From there, he was directed to appear before the Haripad Police Station for further verification, and accordingly, he proceeded from Alappuzha towards Haripad. On the date of the alleged incident, he had travelled to the Alappuzha Special Branch Office for matters relating to his passport verification. From there, he was directed to appear before the Haripad Police Station for further verification, and accordingly, he proceeded from Alappuzha towards Haripad. When he reached Vazhiyambalam, he noticed his father standing at a bus stop, and seeing him he stopped the vehicle. His father informed him that some issues were taking place at Oottuparambu. PW21 immediately proceeded to Oottuparambu. When he reached Oottuparambu railway crossing, he found the gate closed and he was informed by people gathered there that an unfortunate incident had occurred on the north-eastern side of the crossing. PW21 then walked towards the crossing area and noticed Vishnu’s motorcycle lying on the ground. Shortly thereafter, he saw Santhosh, Vinod, and Vishnu @ Kannan bringing Jishnu in an auto-rickshaw. Jishnu’s body was covered with a bed sheet when he was taken to hospital. PW21 stated that he instructed them to transfer Jishnu into his car, following which Jishnu was taken to the Vandanam Medical College Hospital in his vehicle. After examination, the doctor declared Jishnu dead. PW21 stated that while being placed in the car, Jishnu was crying and making humming sounds. He further stated that Jishnu continued to show bodily movements until they reached Ambalappuzha. He stated that when they reached Vandanam MCH, the doctor examined Jishnu and pronounced him dead. His evidence remains unchallenged as none of the counsel cross examined him. 12.18 PW22 is an autorickshaw driver by profession. According to him, on 10.02.2017, he got a trip to Vazhankeri Bhagom from near Haripad temple. While proceeding along with his passengers and on reaching near Oottuparambu railway cross, he saw some persons gathered on the southern side of Oottuparambu railway gate. There, he saw Suraj sitting with hack injuries. One of the relatives of Suraj, namely Santhosh (PW23), requested him to take Suraj to the hospital in his autorickshaw. Accordingly, the passengers who were travelling in his autorickshaw alighted, and Suraj entered the vehicle. At that time, somebody standing there said that some people were coming along the railway line holding lethal weapons. On hearing this, PW22 became frightened and drove the autorickshaw towards the northern side and stopped near a post office. T hen Suraj cried and requested him to take him to the hospital immediately. At that time, somebody standing there said that some people were coming along the railway line holding lethal weapons. On hearing this, PW22 became frightened and drove the autorickshaw towards the northern side and stopped near a post office. T hen Suraj cried and requested him to take him to the hospital immediately. PW22 thereupon turned the autorickshaw towards the south and took PW2 to the hospital. On the way, near the railway cross, he saw an acquaintance, Sajith, who also entered the autorickshaw. Thereafter, o n the way, one Sandeep and one Abhiraj also entered the autorickshaw and they together took Suraj to Haripad Taluk Hospital. 12.19 In order to prove the events that transpired at Oottuparambu railway cross, the prosecution examined Santhosh as PW23. On examination before Court, PW23 testified that he had prior acquaintance with Jishnu. He further deposed that, on the alleged date of occurrence, while he was talking with one Veerappan near Oottuparambu railway cross, he saw Suraj (PW2), Vishnu (PW1) and Jishnu arriving there on two motorbikes. Jishnu and Vishnu came together on one motorbike and Suraj came on another motorbike. Vishnu then spoke to him and, while they were talking, about 10–12 persons came in 3–4 motorbikes, holding weapons and making utterances. On seeing this, Vishnu and Jishnu abandoned their bike and ran towards the eastern side of the railway cross. Those who came with weapons followed Vishnu and Jishnu. Suraj (PW2) also got down from his bike and ran towards the eastern side. On witnessing this, PW23 became frightened and entered the pan shop of one Gopi. According to PW23, he had not seen anyone running behind Suraj. PW23 further deposed that, while he was standing in Gopi’s petty shop, one person came and informed him that a person was lying hacked near the railway cross. On hearing this, he went to the spot and saw Suraj lying with cut injuries at a distance of about 4 metres from the southern side of the railway gate. According to PW23, Suraj had sustained injuries on his hand and hip region. PW23 then tied the wound on Suraj’s hand with a towel. Thereafter, while he was taking Suraj to an autorickshaw to shift him to a hospital, he saw some people coming from the eastern side of the railway cross. He got frightened and ran away from there. According to PW23, Suraj had sustained injuries on his hand and hip region. PW23 then tied the wound on Suraj’s hand with a towel. Thereafter, while he was taking Suraj to an autorickshaw to shift him to a hospital, he saw some people coming from the eastern side of the railway cross. He got frightened and ran away from there. Suraj was then taken to Haripad hospital. PW23 stated that he also went to Haripad hospital on his motorcycle. From Haripad hospital, Suraj was referred to Vandanam M edical College Hospital. Suraj was taken to Vandanam Medical College Hospital in an ambulance and PW23 accompanied him. From the hospital, PW23 came to know that Jishnu had been hacked by some persons who came to Oottuparambu railway cross armed with weapons. From Vandanam Medical College Hospital, Suraj was referred for further treatment to Medical College Hospital, Kottayam. However, according to PW23, he could not identify the assailants who followed Vishnu and Jishnu, as, according to him, they had covered their faces. During cross-examination, when a definite question was put to PW23 as to whether he had seen Suraj (PW2) talking to media personnel, PW23 replied that he had heard Suraj telling media persons that the assailants were wearing masks. The evidence of PW23 supports the prosecution to t he extent that, on the alleged date of occurrence, he had seen Jishnu, Vishnu and Suraj waiting at Oottuparambu railway cross and had seen about 10–12 persons arriving there behind them, holding lethal weapons and making utterances. His evidence further helps the prosecution in establishing that Suraj was hacked near the railway cross itself. 12.20. The next witness of relevance examined by the prosecution is Vishanth (PW37). He stated that he had prior acquaintance with PW1, PW2, and the deceased. According to his testimony, on 10.02.2017, he went to the medical store near the Oottuparambu Railway Crossing to purchase medicine, as he was suffering from a headache. When he reached the turning towards Nalukandam, he saw members of the Kannukalippalam team—namely Kanchappan, Manu, Jayajith, Prabhath, Jibru, and Vishnulal—approaching on motorbikes and scooters and turning towards Nalukandam. He also observed that swords and iron pipes were being carried on the bikes. Becoming frightened, he returned home. After some time, he received a phone call from a friend i nforming him that an incident had occurred at Oottuparambu and that Suraj (PW2) had sustained injuries. He also observed that swords and iron pipes were being carried on the bikes. Becoming frightened, he returned home. After some time, he received a phone call from a friend i nforming him that an incident had occurred at Oottuparambu and that Suraj (PW2) had sustained injuries. On learning this, PW37 proceeded to Oottuparambu on his motorcycle and found Suraj sitting on the road on the western side of the railway crossing, with cut injuries on his left hand. Santhosh (PW23) and three others were present, and PW23 was tying a cloth around Suraj’s wound. According to PW23, “Pappaji” (a name by which Jishnu was also commonly known) had been chased by certain individuals who had moved towards the eastern direction, and the assailants who attacked Suraj had taken his motorcycle. PW37 then ran eastwards towards the Manjathappally house. Upon reaching the area, he saw Sudheesh, Arun Chand, Ambili @ Arun, Sanu, Swarnappan, Akhil, Rahul, and Pradeep coming from the direction of the Manjathappally house. They were carrying swords and axe-like weapons. PW37 stated that he knew these men previously, as they were residents of the same locality. On seeing the aggressors, PW37 ran back towards Oottuparambu, took his motorcycle, and returned home. Later, he went to the Vandanam Hospital, where he learned that Jishnu had succumbed to his injuries. He further stated that the accused belonged to a gang known as the Kannukalippalam Team, and he identified the accused who were present in the dock. During cross-examination, it was elicited that both he and the deceased were members of the DYFI. It was also brought out that PW37 had not informed the police during investigation that the accused belonged to any gang. Precedents and analysis 13. Before we deal with the evidence it would be apposite to keep in mind the observations made by the Apex Court in Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v . State of Gujarat, (2006) 3 SCC 374 . It was observed that a criminal trial is a judicial examination of the issues in the case and its purpose is to arrive at a judgment on an issue as to a fact or relevant facts which may lead to the discovery of the fact in issue and obtain proof of such facts at which the prosecution and the accused have arrived by their pleadings; the controlling question being the guilt or innocence of the accused. Since the object is to mete out justice and to convict the guilty and protect the innocent, the trial should be a search for the truth and not about over technicalities, and must be conducted under such rules as will protect the innocent, and punish the guilty. The proof of charge which has to be beyond reasonable doubt must depend upon judicial evaluation of the totality of the evidence, oral and circumstantial, and not by an isolated scrutiny. 13.1. In State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh, (1974) 3 SCC 277 it was observed that a criminal trial is not like a fairy tale wherein one is free to give flight to one's imagination and fantasy. It concerns itself with the question as to whether the accused arraigned at the trial is guilty of the crime with which he is charged. Crime is an event in real life and is the product of interplay of different human emotions. In arriving at the conclusion about the guilt of the accused charged with the commission of a crime, the court has to judge the evidence by the yardstick of probabilities, its intrinsic worth and the animus of witnesses. Every case in the final analysis would have to depend upon its own facts. Although the benefit of every reasonable doubt should be given to the accused, the courts should not at the same time reject evidence which is ex facie trustworthy on grounds which are fanciful or in the nature of conjectures. 13.2 Insofar as appreciation of the evidence of the eye witnesses are concerned, it would be apposite to bear in mind the time tested observations in Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat , (1983) 3 SCC 217 wherein it was observed as under: “5. … We do not consider it appropriate or permissible to enter upon a reappraisal or reappreciation of the evidence in the context of the minor discrepancies painstakingly highlighted by the learned counsel for the appellant. Overmuch importance cannot be attached to minor discrepancies. The reasons are obvious: (1) By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen. (2) Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events. Overmuch importance cannot be attached to minor discrepancies. The reasons are obvious: (1) By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen. (2) Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events. The witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has an element of surprise. The mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details. (3) The powers of observation differ from person to person. What one may notice, another may not. An object or movement might emboss its image on one person's mind, whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another. (4) By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape-recorder. (5) In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time duration of an occurrence, usually, people make their estimates by guess work on the spur of the moment at the time of interrogation. And one cannot expect people to make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters. Again, it depends on the time-sense of individuals which varies from person to person. (6) Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which takes place in rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated later on. (7) A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the court atmosphere and t he piercing cross-examination made by the counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, or fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment. The subconscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates o n account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved though the witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him—perhaps it is as ort of a psychological defence mechanism activated on the spur of the moment. The subconscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates o n account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved though the witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him—perhaps it is as ort of a psychological defence mechanism activated on the spur of the moment. 13.3 In more or less similar lines as in Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai (supra), in Appabhai v. State of Gujarat , 1988 Supp SCC 241 the Apex Court had occasion to delineate the manner in which evidence of witnesses are to be appreciated. It was observed as under in paragraph 13 of the judgment: 13. … The court while appreciating the evidence must not attach undue importance to minor discrepancies. The discrepancies which do not shake the basic version of the prosecution case may be discarded. The discrepancies which a re due to normal errors of perception or observation should not be given importance. The errors due to lapse of memory may be given due allowance. The court by calling into aid its vast experience of men and matters in different cases must evaluate the entire material on record by excluding the exaggerated version given by any witness. When a doubt arises in respect of certain facts alleged by such witness, the proper course is to ignore that fact only unless it goes into the root of the matter so as to demolish the entire prosecution story. The witnesses now a days goon adding embellishments to their version perhaps for the fear of their testimony being rejected by the court. The courts, however, should not disbelieve the evidence of such witnesses altogether if they are otherwise trustworthy 13.4 In Sohrab v. State of M.P. (1972) 3 SCC 751 , it was observed as under by the Apex Court: "8. … This Court has held that falsus in u no, falsus in omnibus is not a sound rule for the reason that hardly one comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or at any rate exaggeration, embroideries or embellishments. … This Court has held that falsus in u no, falsus in omnibus is not a sound rule for the reason that hardly one comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or at any rate exaggeration, embroideries or embellishments. In most cases, the witnesses when a sked a bout details venture to give some answer, not necessarily t rue o r relevant for fear that their evidence may not be accepted in respect of the main incident which they have witnessed but that i s not to say that their evidence as to the salient features of the case after cautious scrutiny cannot be considered…." 13.5 Bearing in mind the law and the observations laid down as above, we shall now consider the contentions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. 13.6 One of the principal contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the evidence tendered by the prosecution through the testimonies of PW1 (Vishnu), the brother o f the deceased, and PW2 (Suraj), lacks credibility. It is urged that their presence at the scene of occurrence is doubtful, and it is further contended that both witnesses embellished their versions when examined before the Court. On that sole ground, it is argued, their testimonies ought to be discarded in their entirety. 13.7 While appreciating the said contention, it becomes necessary to note the fact that PW1, PW2, and the deceased were travelling together on two motorcycles and had halted at the Oottuparambu railway crossing stands firmly established. PW1, PW2, and PW23 (Santhosh) have consistently stated that the motorcycles were parked near the railway crossing when the armed assailants arrived on separate motorcycles and the incident commenced. Significantly, even DW6 (Amaljith), a defence witness, admitted before the Court that the first phase of the incident involving Jishnu, Vishnu, and Suraj occurred at the Oottuparambu Railway Station and that the assailants reached the scene on four motorcycles. This admission by a defence witness further fortifies the prosecution case rather than undermining it. 13.8 The evidence of PW1, PW2, PW5, PW9, and PW23 (Santhosh) provides a clear and chronological account of the events that unfolded at the Oottuparambu railway crossing. It was upon seeing the accused that the deceased fled eastward and sought refuge in the Manjathapally house, pursued closely by assailants wielding weapons. 13.8 The evidence of PW1, PW2, PW5, PW9, and PW23 (Santhosh) provides a clear and chronological account of the events that unfolded at the Oottuparambu railway crossing. It was upon seeing the accused that the deceased fled eastward and sought refuge in the Manjathapally house, pursued closely by assailants wielding weapons. This sequence of events stands corroborated by PW1, PW2, PW3, PW6, and PW9. As regards the attack inside the Manjathapally house and the events thereafter, the testimonies of PW3, PW4, PW19, and PW37 (Vishanth) offer a coherent picture of what transpired within the house. On an overall reading of the evidence, it becomes clear that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing an uninterrupted chain of events, from the initial confrontation at the railway crossing to the fatal assault inside the Manjathapally house and the involvement of the appellants. 13.9 It is true that not every witness specifically named all the accused. PW3 stated that the assailants trespassed into her house and inflicted cut injuries on Jishnu, though she did not identify them by name. PW23’s testimony is similar in this respect. PW5, a railway employee, and PW9, the tea shop owner, also described the assailants without naming them. However, PW37 categorically stated that, upon hearing of the incident and reaching the Manjathapally house, he saw Sudheesh (A1), Arun Chand (A2), Ambili @ Arun (A3), Sanu (A4), Swarnappan (A8), Rahul (A6), and Pradeep (A5) emerging from the direction of the house with weapons in hand. An overall evaluation of the testimonies reveals a consistent narrative: Jishnu, Vishnu, and Suraj had halted near the railway station; a group of assailants arrived on motorcycles; they chased the victims; and they inflicted injuries on Jishnu inside the Manjathapally house. On the crucial aspect of identification, PW1 and PW2 have provided clear and consistent testimony as to the presence of the accused at the scene and that they were the ones who had chased the deceased leading Jishnu to seek refuge in the house of PW3. 13.10 The contention that PW1 had no definite case at the inception is without substance. The incident occurred at 11:45 a.m. on 10.02.2017. The F.I. Statement (Ext. P1) was recorded without delay at 02:00 p.m., the FIR was registered at 04:18 p.m., and it reached the Court by 07:30 p.m. the same day. In Ext. 13.10 The contention that PW1 had no definite case at the inception is without substance. The incident occurred at 11:45 a.m. on 10.02.2017. The F.I. Statement (Ext. P1) was recorded without delay at 02:00 p.m., the FIR was registered at 04:18 p.m., and it reached the Court by 07:30 p.m. the same day. In Ext. P1, lodged within approximately two hours of the incident, PW1, the distraught and terrified elder brother of the deceased, gave a detailed version of the occurrence and specifically named A1, A2, A3, A5, and A6. As regards A4, he initially mentioned “Sarath” instead of “Sanu.” In addition to naming six accused, he further stated that ten others, identifiable by sight, were also involved in chasing his brother and inflicting injuries. Both names begin with the identical syllable “Sa” and are phonetically similar, making an inadvertent interchange highly probable. It is equally possible that the police officer recording the statement misheard or incorrectly noted the name. Moreover, on 16.02.2017 itself, Exhibit P126 report was forwarded to the Court furnishing the correct address and details of A4, A7, and A10. 13.11 It is also pertinent to note that PW1, in his F.I. Statement, has spoken of the dying declaration made by the deceased naming A1, A2, and others. It cannot be overlooked that PW1 was the elder brother of the deceased, had spent the morning with him, and was the person who discovered Jishnu grievously wounded in the kitchen of the Manjathapally house after being chased by the assailants. One cannot reasonably expect such a person, confronted with a shocking and traumatic situation, to furnish a perfectly meticulous or error-free narrative to the police within hours of the incident. No individual, least of all one in PW1’s position, can be expected to possess photographic memory or to recall every detail of a violent and chaotic incident as though he were a recording device. 13.12 In Latesh alias Dadu Babirao Karlekar v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2018 SC 659 the Apex Court had occasion to consider the evidentiary value to be attached to an FIR. It was held that the weight to be accorded to an FIR depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The Hon’ble Court observed that the capacity to accurately reproduce events varies from person to person. Some individuals possess a sharper ability to recall and narrate events precisely, whereas others may not. It was held that the weight to be accorded to an FIR depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The Hon’ble Court observed that the capacity to accurately reproduce events varies from person to person. Some individuals possess a sharper ability to recall and narrate events precisely, whereas others may not. Moreover, persons who have witnessed or experienced a violent incident may, while in a state of shock, omit important details, as different people react differently under extreme stress. Therefore, merely because the names of some of the accused are not mentioned or specifically detailed in the FIR cannot be a ground, by itself, to doubt its veracity or to discard the prosecution case. 13.13 In the present case, the version given by PW1 in the FIR stands corroborated by other witnesses with respect to the manner in which the incident unfolded. After the crime was registered on the basis of his initial statement, further statements of PW1 were recorded once he regained composure. In those subsequent statements, he was able to furnish a more detailed narration of the gruesome events. It is well-settled that an FIR is not expected to be an encyclopedia of the incident, containing every minute fact or circumstance as to how the crime was committed. Its primary purpose is to set the criminal law in motion, not to present an exhaustive account. 13.14 In the case on hand, we notice that PW3, the resident of the house where the incident occurred, the neighbours who rushed to the scene immediately thereafter, and even the witness who tended to the deceased while he lay grievously injured, all spoke about the incident but did not specifically support the prosecution regarding identification of the accused. This is, in the circumstances, only to be expected, as the witnesses were evidently apprehensive and afraid of naming the assailants openly in Court. The prosecutor confronted these witnesses with their earlier statements, and the relevant contradictions and omissions were duly proved through the Investigating Officer. Merely because these witnesses did not name the accused individually as the assailants does not detract from the fact that they consistently narrated the occurrence. The manner in which the accused trespassed into the house, chased Jishnu, broke open the door to the room in the first-floor, and ultimately hacked him to death after pursuing him to the kitchen. Merely because these witnesses did not name the accused individually as the assailants does not detract from the fact that they consistently narrated the occurrence. The manner in which the accused trespassed into the house, chased Jishnu, broke open the door to the room in the first-floor, and ultimately hacked him to death after pursuing him to the kitchen. These critical facts stand firmly established through their testimonies. In addition, the scientific and forensic evidence and the presence of blood and the damage caused inside the house also discloses the brutal manner in which the assailants executed the attack, thereby corroborating the ocular version put forward by PW1, PW2, and other supporting witnesses. 14. The next contention concerns the admissibility and probative value of the dying declaration. In Ext. P1 and PW1 stated that the deceased told him that the injuries were inflicted by accused No.1, accused No.2 and others. When examined before the Court, PW1 elaborated on certain details narrated by the deceased, which do not appear in the FIR; however, the core disclosure remains wholly consistent. The principles governing dying declarations are well settled. In Laxman v. State of Maharashtra , (2002) 6 SCC 710 the Apex Court reiterated that a dying declaration is admitted on the juristic theory that such a statement is made in extremis, when all hope of recovery is lost and the motive to speak falsely is extinguished. Yet, Courts must exercise great caution, as various circumstances may affect its truthfulness. Mental fitness, voluntariness, absence of tutoring, and the declarant’s opportunity to observe the assailants are essential considerations. Although medical certification is a rule of prudence, it is not an indispensable legal requirement. A dying declaration may be oral, written, or communicated through signs, provided it is clear and definite. It need not be recorded by a Magistrate, and no statutory form is prescribed; its evidentiary weight ultimately depends on the facts of each case. What is essential is that the recorder is satisfied about the mental fitness of the declarant and that the Court finds the statement voluntary and truthful. Though the appellants argue that the dying declaration in this case is unreliable, the legal position is clear, once the Court is satisfied regarding the voluntariness and reliability of the declaration, a conviction can be based on the same as held in P.V. Radhakrishna v. State of Karnataka, (2003) 6 SCC 443 . Though the appellants argue that the dying declaration in this case is unreliable, the legal position is clear, once the Court is satisfied regarding the voluntariness and reliability of the declaration, a conviction can be based on the same as held in P.V. Radhakrishna v. State of Karnataka, (2003) 6 SCC 443 . Corroboration, though desirable, is a matter of prudence, not a legal mandate. 14.1 In the case on hand, PW1 went looking for his brother and saw him lying with cut injuries in the kitchen of the house of PW3. The deceased lifted his right hand with his left, PW1 wiped the blood from his face, and only thereafter did the deceased disclose the names of the assailants. Of course at the time of tendering evidence, PW1 has embellished his earlier version. However as held by the Apex Court in Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai (supra), a witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the court atmosphere and the piercing cross-examination made by the counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, or fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment. The subconscious mind of the witness sometimes operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved though the witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him. 14.2. Furthermore, PW84, who conducted the autopsy, was specifically asked whether a person with the injuries sustained by the deceased could remain conscious and capable of communication. He unequivocally affirmed that both consciousness and speech were possible, explaining that the presence of air embolism ruled out instantaneous death. His testimony remained unshaken in cross-examination. PW21, the taxi driver who transported the injured to the hospital, also stated that the deceased was crying and making movements throughout the journey to Ambalapuzha. Even DW2, the expert doctor examined by the defence, conceded that although oxygen deficiency may impair complex cognitive functions but basic speech and memory recall remain possible. In his chief examination, DW2 stated that the prefrontal cortex plays a major role in the thinking process of an adult human being. He, however, acknowledged that it is only one part of the brain and that various other regions also contribute to cognitive functioning. In his chief examination, DW2 stated that the prefrontal cortex plays a major role in the thinking process of an adult human being. He, however, acknowledged that it is only one part of the brain and that various other regions also contribute to cognitive functioning. According to DW2, although the prefrontal cortex is critical for judgment and higher-order reasoning, deprivation of oxygen would initially affect only complex cognitive functions, while memory retention would remain intact. He clarified that it is the higher-order problem-solving abilities that are impaired first. During cross-examination, when specifically asked whether a person could think like an ordinary human being if there were a deficiency in oxygenated blood supply to the brain, DW2 conceded that brain functions would indeed be affected. He further explained that the impairment would first manifest in higher cerebral functions,such as intelligent problem-solving,while simpler functions, including basic speech and memory recall, would still be possible. Thus, the testimony of DW2 does not support the defence contention that the injuries sustained by the deceased would have caused instantaneous death or rendered him incapable of speech, recollection, or coherent expression. On further examination, after referring to Exhibit P73 (the post-mortem certificate), DW2 confirmed that although the victim may have been incapable of engaging in complex reasoning, he could still recollect and narrate the events immediately preceding the infliction of the fatal injuries. These testimonies collectively lend strong support to the version o f PW1 that Jishnu was capable of making a dying declaration. The combined evidence of PW84, PW21, and DW2 convincingly establishes that, despite the severity of the injuries, the deceased retained the ability to speak and recollect at the relevant time. In light of the consistent testimony of PW1, corroborated by the medical evidence, we find no reason to doubt that the deceased did in fact disclose the names of his assailants to PW1. 14.3 The defence next contends that PW3 and PW23 referred to the assailants as wearing a mask to cover their face. The prosecution never alleged that the accused were masked, nor did PW1, PW2, PW3, PW5, or PW9 state so at any earlier stage. During cross-examination, the prosecution established that these references were embellishments. The defence sought to rely on DW1, DW3, and DW4 (news personnel) to suggest influence from media reports, but none could substantiate the theory. The prosecution never alleged that the accused were masked, nor did PW1, PW2, PW3, PW5, or PW9 state so at any earlier stage. During cross-examination, the prosecution established that these references were embellishments. The defence sought to rely on DW1, DW3, and DW4 (news personnel) to suggest influence from media reports, but none could substantiate the theory. There is thus no material to support the claim that any accused wore masks. 14.4 The argument that the presence of PW1 and PW2 near the scene of occurrence is doubtful is equally untenable. PW3, PW13 (Vishnu), PW19 (Sanoosh), and PW23 all stated that PW1 emerged from the Manjathappally house immediately after the incident. PW3 specifically deposed that PW1 told her that his brother had been “done away with.” Even DW6 (Amaljith), a defence witness, admitted that Vishnu was present with Jishnu on the date of the incident. When a defence witness corroborates the prosecution on this critical aspect, the argument disputing PW1’s presence becomes wholly unsustainable. The learned Sessions Judge also considered the “last seen theory,” relying on the consistent testimony of PW1, PW2, PW5, and PW9 that the accused had assembled at the railway crossing, chased the deceased, and inflicted injuries at the Manjathappally house. 14.5 The next contention is the alleged illegality in not registering an FIR based on the telephonic information received. PW71, PW87, and PW95 stated that the messages received were vague, merely indicating that “an incident” had occurred at Oottuparambu. The Apex Court in Tapinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (1970) 2 SCC 113 has held that a cryptic, incomplete, or vague telephonic message does not constitute an FIR. The information in the present case lacked details regarding the nature of the offence, the assailants, or the gravity of the incident. It was purely cryptic. Hence, the non-registration of an FIR on that basis is not fatal to the prosecution. 15. We shall now deal with the recovery of clothes and weapons at the instance of the accused. The investigation was primarily conducted by PW96 and later by PW97. On 11.02.2017, PW96 inspected the entire scene of occurrence, including the Oottuparambu railway crossing, the route through which Jishnu was chased, and the Manjathappally house (Anoop Nivas), where he was ultimately hacked. The scene mahazar was prepared as Ext. P19. The investigation was primarily conducted by PW96 and later by PW97. On 11.02.2017, PW96 inspected the entire scene of occurrence, including the Oottuparambu railway crossing, the route through which Jishnu was chased, and the Manjathappally house (Anoop Nivas), where he was ultimately hacked. The scene mahazar was prepared as Ext. P19. At the railway crossing, PW96 noticed bloodstains on the tarred road, broken glass pieces, and a damaged motorcycle bearing No. KL-29/K-6921 lying in the property of one Raveendran, with fragments of its headlight and indicator found nearby. Bloodstained dried leaves were also collected. A rose-coloured dhoti, identified as MO18, that came off the body of Jishnu while fleeing, was recovered from the eastern side of the crossing and seized under Ext.P19. PW96 further deposed that inspection of the Manjathappally house revealed broken windows, from which a glass piece (MO44) was seized. Bloodstains were found in the hall, along with two bloodstained towels (MO45 and MO46). Blood was also detected in the kitchen, including on the refrigerator and on vessels. On the staircase leading to the first floor, PW96 recovered a stone pillar (MO40), a hollow brick (MO41), and a coconut scraper with its detached blade (MO42 and MO43). The door of the first-floor bedroom was found broken open, with damaged clamps and bloodstains on the door, walls, and floor. All articles recovered during the scene mahazar, along with samples collected by the scientific officer, were forwarded to the Court under Ext. P96 property list. PW96 also p roduced the nail clippings, bone marrow, and a tooth that had been handed over by the doctor who conducted the post-mortem. 15.1 On the evening of 11.02.2017, at about 8.45 p.m., PW96 arrested A2, A3, A5 and A6 near the General Hospital, Alappuzha, and got them identified by PW1. Their clothes, which they admitted to be worn by them during the commission of the offence, were seized under Exts. P47 to P50 and produced before Court under Ext. P112. A8 and A9 were arrested on 15.02.2017 near the Kayamkulam railway station, and a train ticket (Ext. P117) and currency notes (MO54 series) were recovered from A8. The dhoti worn by A8 at the time of the incident was seized under Ext. P51 (MO38). On 19.02.2017, clothes of A7 were recovered from his house pursuant to his disclosure statement, under Ext. P24 (MO31 T-shirt and MO30 Jeans), later produced before Court under Ext. P117) and currency notes (MO54 series) were recovered from A8. The dhoti worn by A8 at the time of the incident was seized under Ext. P51 (MO38). On 19.02.2017, clothes of A7 were recovered from his house pursuant to his disclosure statement, under Ext. P24 (MO31 T-shirt and MO30 Jeans), later produced before Court under Ext. P140. 15.2 Pursuant to the disclosure statements of the accused, several recoveries were effected under Section 27 of the Evidence Act 1872. The sword of A2 (MO5) was recovered on 23.02.2017 under Ext. P11, with PW50 as the attesting witness who fully supported the prosecution. The sword of A3 (MO9) was recovered on 25.02.2017 under Ext. P25, though both attestors, PW47 and PW48, turned hostile. The sword of A4 (MO6) was recovered on 17.03.2017 under Ext. P38, but PW62, the attesting witness, turned hostile and the other attestor was not examined. The sword of A5 (MO7) was recovered on 24.02.2017 under Ext. P10, with both attestors, PW12 and PW19, supporting the prosecution. The sword of A6 (MO8) was recovered o n 24.02.2017 under Ext. P30, where PW51, one of the attesting witnesses, supported the prosecution while PW55 turned hostile. The sword of A7 (MO11) was recovered on 28.02.2017 under Ext. P43, attested by PW67 and PW70, both of whom supported the prosecution. The steel pipe and sword attributed to A8 (MO3 and MO10) were recovered on 26.02.2017 under Ext. P32, with PW53 supporting the prosecution, while the second attestor was not examined. Additionally, t he clothes allegedly worn by A2, A3, A5, and A6 at the time of the offence were marked as MO19, MO21, MO23, and MO25 which were recovered on 25.02.2017 under Exts. P26 to P29 and later produced before the Court under Exts. P112 and P152. PW96 also r ecovered a shirt worn by A8 at the time of the incident on 26.02.2017 under Ext. P31 (MO39). PW97, who took over the investigation on 04.03.2017 (Ext. P94), arrested A4 from Vandanam on the basis of secret information. A4’s body search yielded two train tickets (Ext. P167 series), one Rs.20 currency note (MO60), and a mobile phone (MO59), which were seized under Ext. P166. On PW97’s directions, PW95 obtained police custody of A4 and recovered his clothes and the sword used in the offence, producing them under Ext. P171. A4’s body search yielded two train tickets (Ext. P167 series), one Rs.20 currency note (MO60), and a mobile phone (MO59), which were seized under Ext. P166. On PW97’s directions, PW95 obtained police custody of A4 and recovered his clothes and the sword used in the offence, producing them under Ext. P171. 15.3 The evidence of PW96 assumes significant importance in lending credibility to the recoveries effected in this case, particularly the weapons used in the commission of the offence and the clothes worn by the accused at the relevant time. Although a few witnesses to the recovery mahazars turned hostile, such hostility does not, by itself, vitiate or undermine the entire process of recovery. In Modan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan , (1978) 4 SCC 435 it was observed by the Apex Court that where the evidence of the investigating officer who recovered the material objects is convincing, the evidence as to recovery need not be rejected on the ground that seizure witnesses did not support the prosecution version. A similar view was expressed in Mohd. Aslam vs. State of Maharashtra, (2001) 9 SCC 362 . In Anter Singh vs. State of Rajasthan , (2004) 10 SCC 657 it was further held that even if panch witnesses turn hostile, which happens very often in criminal cases, the evidence of the person who effected the recovery would not stand vitiated. 15.4 PW96, the Investigating Officer, deposed that accused Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11 were in judicial custody and were formally handed over to him in police custody from 23.02.2017 to 25.02.2017 for the purpose of effecting recoveries. His testimony is clear, consistent, and cogent, and it provides a detailed account of how the recoveries were duly carried out. During cross-examination, PW96 further clarified that all witnesses who had attested the recovery mahazars were individuals who were present at the scene during the recovery proceedings. He also explained that certain witnesses were initially reluctant or apprehensive to act as witnesses due to the fear and intimidation generated by the gruesome nature of the incident. This explanation adds further weight to the reliability of his testimony and the procedural integrity of the recoveries effected. Having considered the entire facts we find no reason to doubt the evidence of recovery of the weapons. This explanation adds further weight to the reliability of his testimony and the procedural integrity of the recoveries effected. Having considered the entire facts we find no reason to doubt the evidence of recovery of the weapons. 15.5 The appellants have raised a contention that the chemical analysis report showing the presence of blood ought to be disregarded on the ground that the chain of custody of the seized material objects was not established as blemishfree. However, the appellants have not been able to establish before the Court any flaw in the manner in which the seizure was effected or in the dates on which the seized materials reached the Court, nor have they demonstrated that the investigating officer acted with malicious intent or manipulated or concocted evidence. Therefore, the contention that the recovery should be disbelieved for want of a proper chain of custody is without merit. 16. The result o f FSL examination pertaining to the weapons recovered at the instance of the accused would, according to us, bolster the case of the prosecution. MO5 Sword, allegedly used by A2, which is shown as item No.4 in the FSL report, shows that the same contained human blood belonging to group ‘O’ which is the same blood group as that of Jishnu. The result of DNA examination, which is separately marked as Ext. P212(c), shows that the bloodstains in item No.4 belong to the deceased person Jishnu, to whom the bone marrow in item No.1 belongs. 16.1 The result of FSL examination pertaining to MO9 sword allegedly used by A3, which is shown as item No.5 in the FSL report, shows that the same contained human blood belonging to group ‘O’, which is the same blood group as that of Jishnu. The result of DNA examination, marked as Ext. P212(c) shows that the bloodstains in item No.5 belong to the deceased person Jishnu, to whom the bone marrow in item No.1 belongs. 16.2 The result of FSL examination pertaining to MO6 sword allegedly used by A4, which is shown as item No.10 in the FSL report, shows that the same contained human blood belonging to group ‘O’, which is the same blood group as that of Jishnu. The result of DNA examination separately marked as Ext. 16.2 The result of FSL examination pertaining to MO6 sword allegedly used by A4, which is shown as item No.10 in the FSL report, shows that the same contained human blood belonging to group ‘O’, which is the same blood group as that of Jishnu. The result of DNA examination separately marked as Ext. P212(c) shows that the bloodstains in item No.10 belong to the deceased person Jishnu, to whom the bone marrow shown as item No.1 in the FSL report belongs. 16.3 The result of FSL examination pertaining to MO7 sword allegedly used by A5, which is shown as item No.6 in the FSL report, shows that item No.6 contained human blood belonging to group ‘O’, the same blood group as that of Jishnu. The result of DNA examination, which is separately marked as Ext. P212(c), shows that the bloodstains in item No.6 belong to the deceased person Jishnu, to whom the bone marrow in item No.1 belongs. The result of FSL examination pertaining to MO8 sword allegedly used by A6, which is shown as item No.7 in the FSL report, shows that the same contained human blood belonging to group ‘O’, the same blood group a s that of Jishnu. The result of DNA examination, which is separately marked as Ext. P212(c), shows that the bloodstains in item No.7 belong to the deceased person Jishnu, to whom the bone marrow in item No.1 belongs. 16.4 The result of FSL examination pertaining to MO11 sword allegedly used by A7, which is shown as item No.23 in the report, shows that the same contained human blood belonging to group ‘A’, the same blood group as that of Suraj (PW2). The result of FSL examination pertaining to MO3, the axe-like weapon built on a pipe and allegedly used by A8, which is shown as item No.8 in the FSL report, shows that the same contained human blood belonging to group ‘O’, the same blood group a s that of Jishnu. The result of DNA examination, which is separately marked as Ext. P212(c), shows that the bloodstains in item No.8 belong to the deceased person Jishnu, to whom the bone marrow in item No.1 belongs. 16.5 Thus, the evidence of PW96 and PW97, supported by the testimony of independent attesters and corroborated by the FSL and DNA reports, clearly establishes an unbroken chain of circumstances connecting accused Nos. P212(c), shows that the bloodstains in item No.8 belong to the deceased person Jishnu, to whom the bone marrow in item No.1 belongs. 16.5 Thus, the evidence of PW96 and PW97, supported by the testimony of independent attesters and corroborated by the FSL and DNA reports, clearly establishes an unbroken chain of circumstances connecting accused Nos. 2 to 8 with the weapons and clothes used in the commission of the offences. The recoveries were effected pursuant to disclosure statements, duly recorded under law, witnessed by independent panch witnesses and scientifically verified. The investigation in this r egard, therefore, rests on firm legal and evidentiary foundations. 17. The next issue for consideration concerns the extent of involvement of A7 and the correctness of the finding of the learned Sessions Judge holding him guilty for the offence under Section 307 of the IPC . PW2 has consistently asserted that he had prior acquaintance with A7, and this foundational assertion remained completely unchallenged during cross-examination, thereby enhancing its evidentiary weight. PW2 categorically deposed that A7 attacked him with a sword, hacking him twice. The medical evidence provides clear corroboration. PW75, the Doctor who examined PW2 immediately after the incident at the Taluk Headquarters Hospital, Haripad, deposed that on 10.02.2017 at 12.20 p.m., while serving as Casualty Medical Officer, he examined Suraj (PW2) and issued the wound certificate, which is marked as Ext.P57. PW75 noted the following injuries: a) Large lacerated cut injury on the left hand measuring 10 x 5 x 3 cm b) Lacerated wound in the left iliac region 17.1 PW75 further stated that Injury No.1 involved tendon and vessel damage, clearly indicating the severity of the blow. The nature, dimension, and depth of these injuries fully corroborate the specific overt acts attributed to A7 and lend strong, independent support to the testimony of PW2. To attract an offence under Section 307 IPC , it is necessary to establish that the act committed by the accused, if it had resulted in the victim’s death, would have amounted to an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC . For a conviction under Section 307 IPC , the prosecution must prove the presence of intent to cause death, coupled with an overt act in execution of that intention. For a conviction under Section 307 IPC , the prosecution must prove the presence of intent to cause death, coupled with an overt act in execution of that intention. It is not essential that the injuries inflicted be capable of causing death, nor is proof of grievous or life-threatening hurt a sine qua non for sustaining a conviction under Section 307 IPC . The intention of the accused must be gathered from the totality of circumstances, including the nature of the weapon used, the manner of attack, the force employed, and the part of the body targeted. Applying these principles to the present case, it is evident that the weapon used was a sword, a deadly weapon capable of inflicting fatal injuries. 17.2 A7 hacked PW2 not once, but twice, and the multiplicity and nature of the wounds clearly established repeated blows with considerable force. The act itself is sufficiently proved, and the manner in which it was carried out unmistakably indicates an intention to cause death. These circumstances clearly attract the second part of Section 307 IPC . 17.3 We are of the view that the above finding of the learned Sessions Judge does not warrant any interference. The Investigating Officer (PW96), who effected the arrest of A7, deposed that while A7 was in police custody on 28.02.2017, he gave a disclosure statement. Acting on this disclosure, the Investigating Officer recovered the sword (MO11) from a location pointed out by A7. The recovery mahazar is marked as Ext.P43, and the relevant portion of A7’s disclosure is recorded as Ext.P43(a). PW67, an independent witness to the recovery, supported the prosecution version. He admitted his signature on Ext.P43 and testified that he witnessed A7 taking a sword from a bushy area near a thodu and handing it over to the police. The recovery, therefore, stands on firm footing. 17.4 Further, the Forensic Science Laboratory report (Ext.P212), wherein MO11 is item No. 23, confirms the presence of human blood of Group A, the same blood group as that of the deceased, Suraj. This scientific corroboration significantly strengthens the prosecution case against A7. In short, the testimony of PW2, supported by medical evidence, recovery evidence, and forensic findings, convincingly establishes the involvement of A7. PW2, being an injured witness with no proven animosity towards A7, inspires full confidence. There exists no circumstance to doubt his version. 18. This scientific corroboration significantly strengthens the prosecution case against A7. In short, the testimony of PW2, supported by medical evidence, recovery evidence, and forensic findings, convincingly establishes the involvement of A7. PW2, being an injured witness with no proven animosity towards A7, inspires full confidence. There exists no circumstance to doubt his version. 18. In view of the foregoing discussion, we hold that the learned Sessions Judge did not err in relying on the evidence of PW1 and PW2, as their testimonies inspire the confidence of this Court and bear a clear ring of truth. Their depositions, together with the evidence of PW3, PW4, PW5, PW9, PW23 and PW37, convincingly establish the sequence of events commencing from the arrival of a group of assailants, armed with deadly weapons, who came in multiple batches on motorcycles and scooters and mounted a brutal assault in broad daylight near the Oottuparambu railway cross. The evidence clearly discloses that among these assailants, accused Nos. 1 to 6 and 8 chased Jishnu, who had fled for his life. The testimony of PW2, an injured eyewitness, unambiguously shows that accused Nos. 2 to 6 and 8 followed Jishnu with dangerous weapons. PW1 corroborates this sequence by stating that, shortly thereafter, Jishnu was found lying in a pool of blood inside the kitchen of the Manjathappally house. The brief interval between the moment Jishnu was chased by the accused and the moment he was discovered grievously injured inside the Manjathappally house effectively eliminates the possibility of any third person being the author of the crime. The chain of circumstances stands complete and points unerringly to the involvement of the accused who pursued him.The dying declaration made by Jishnu to PW1 narrating the cause of the injuries that led to his death is eminently believable. There is nothing on record to suggest that this dying declaration was tutored, fabricated, or the result of prompting. The declaration clearly implicates accused Nos. 1 to 6 and 8. There is absolutely no material to discredit or doubt its reliability. Additionally, the recovery of weapons allegedly used in the offence, effected pursuant to disclosure statements made by the accused, further strengthens the prosecution case and corroborates their complicity. PW1, being the brother of the deceased, would ordinarily be the last person to shield the actual culprits and falsely implicate innocent persons. Additionally, the recovery of weapons allegedly used in the offence, effected pursuant to disclosure statements made by the accused, further strengthens the prosecution case and corroborates their complicity. PW1, being the brother of the deceased, would ordinarily be the last person to shield the actual culprits and falsely implicate innocent persons. The prompt lodging of the FIS, his presence with the deceased, and his consistent narration of the events of that day deserve considerable weight. In light of the entire evidence, we have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has successfully established that accused Nos. 1 to 6 and 8 formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with the common object of committing the murder of Jishnu, and that Jishnu was indeed murdered in prosecution of that common object. A7 did not participate in the assault on Jishnu, as the evidence of PW2 clearly shows that after inflicting a cut injury on PW2, A7 proceeded northwards and did not join the group that pursued Jishnu. 19. Having appreciated the entire evidence, we dismiss these appeals by holding as under: a) The finding of guilt, conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Mavelikara in S.C.No.373/2017 on accused Nos.2 to 8 does not warrant any interference. b) Crl.A. No. 511 of 2020, Crl.A. No. 554 of 2020, Crl.A. No. 244 of 2020 and Crl.A. No. 510 of 2020 will stand dismissed, confirming the finding of guilt, conviction and sentence. c) The appellant in Crl.A. No. 244 of 2020 being on bail, his bail bond will stand cancelled and he is directed to appear before the Trial Court on 25.11.2025 and if he fails to appear, he shall be taken into custody to serve out the sentence. d) The appellants shall be entitled to the set off allowed by the learned Sessions Judge and the same, needless to say, shall be subject to the orders passed by the appropriate authority under Sections 432 and 433 Cr.P.C.