G.Radhakrishna Rao, J.:-

(1) In all 64 accused faced trial before the learned additional district and sessions judge, srikakulam, in s. C. No. 28 of 1989, on his file, in connection with ten charges framed against them, viz. , (1) a charge under section 148 ipc against a - 1 to a - 64, (2) a charge under section 302 ipc against a - 10, a - 11, a - 18, a - 19, a - 20, a - 23, a - 24 and a - 25 for causing the death of sadagala yerakayya, who will hereinafter be referred to as "d - 1", (3) a charge under section 302 ipc against a - 2, a - 4, a - 5, a - 8, a - 14, a - 21, a - 22 and a - 26 for causing the death of mudda appayya, who will hereinafter be referred to as "d - 2", (4) a charge under section 302 ipc against a - 1, a - 3, a - 15, a - 27 and a - 63 for causing the death of baddi pentayya, who will hereinafter be referred to as "d - 3," (5) a charge under section 302 ipc against a - 1, a - 6, a - 7, a - 9, a - 12, a - 13, a - 16, a - 17 and a - 28 to a - 32 for causing the death of baddi mallesu, who will hereinafter be referred to as "d - 4", (6) a charge under section 449 ipc against a - 1 to a - 32 and a - 63, (7) a charge under section 302 ipc read with section 149 ipc against a - 1 to a - 64, (8) a charge under section 326 ipc against a - 8, a - 20, a - 27 and a - 35 for voluntarily causing grievous hurt to p. W. 18 patta papaiah, p. W. 19 baddi gangulu, and p. W. 22 mudda yerraiah, (9) a charge under 324 ipc against a - 1 to a - 6, a - 8, a - 11, a - 12, a - 13, a - 14, a - 16 to a - 20, a - 22, a - 27 to a - 29, a - 32 to a - 42, a - 44 to a - 56, a - 58 to a - 61 and a - 64 for voluntarily causing hurt to p. Vv. 6 seemeresu atchamma, p. W. 13 baddi gangulu, p. W. 14 baddi simmaiah, p. W. 15 mudda rajodu, p. W. 16 baddi rama murlhy, p. W. 17 metta gangulu, p. W. 18 patta papaiah, p. W. 19 baddi gangulu, s/o latchodu, p. W. 20 baddi chinnodu, p. W. 21 sadagala polivadu, p. W. 22 mudda yerraiah, p. W. 23 pitta latchayya, p. W. 24 baddi amasa, p. W. 25 malta mallesu, p. W. 26 pitta simmaiah, p. W. 27 mudda gannaiah and p. W. 28 baddi bhaskara rao, and (10) a charge under section 302 read with section 109 ipc against a - 1 for abetting the commission of murder of d - l and d - 2 by a - 4, a - 5, a - 8, a - 10, a - 11, a - 14 and a - 18 to a - 26.

(2) In support of the above charges framed against the accused, the prosecution has examined in all 49 witnesses and got exs. P - 1 to p - 128 and m os. 1 to 38 marked. The learned additional sessions judge, after considering the evidence and merits of the case, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has made out a case against a - 1 to a - 6, a - 8 to a - 22, a - 24, a - 25, a - 26 (since died) , a - 27 to a - 29, a - 33 to a - 37, a - 40, a - 41, a - 44 to a - 48, a - 53, a - 59 to a - 61, a - 63 and a - 64 and convicted and sentenced them for the various charges as noted below: a - 1 is convicted for the offence under section 302 ipc in respect of the murder of d - 3 and sentenced to death and to pay a fine of rs. 200/ - to be recovered from his assets or properties and in default of payment thereof, to undergo simple imprisonment for 14 days; he is also convicted for the offence under section 302 ipc in respect of the murder of d - 4 and sentenced to death and to pay a fine of rs. 200/ - and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 14 clays. A - 1 is further convicted under section 302 ipc read with section 109 ipc and sentenced to death and to pay a fine of rs. 200/ - in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 14 days. A - 1 is also convicted for the offence under section 449 ipc and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of rs. 100/ - in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 7 days and a - 1 is further convicted for the offence under section 148 ipc and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. Consequent to the imposition of death sentence, a - 1 is directed to be hanged, by the neck, till he is dead, subject to the confirmation by the high court. A - 2 to a - 6, a - 8 to a - 22, a - 24, a - 25, a - 27 to a - 29, a - 33 to a - 37, a - 40, a - 41, a - 44 to a - 48, a - 53, a - 59, a - 60, a - 61, a - 63 and a - 64 are convicted for the offence under section 148 ipc and each of them is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. As a - 26 was reported dead,he was not convicted and sentenced for the offence under section 148 jfc. A - 10 and a - 19 are convicted for the offence under section 3021fc and each of them is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of rs. 200/ - in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 14 days. A - 2, a - 4 and a - 8 are convicted for the offence under section 302 jpc and each of them is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of rs. 200/ - in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 14 days. A - 3, a - 15 and a - 27 are convicted for the offence under section 302 ipc and each of them is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of rs. 200/ - in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 14 days. A - 9, a - 16 and a - 17 are convicted for the offence under section 302 ipc and each of them is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of rs. 200/ - in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 14 days. A - 3, a - 9, a - 16, a - 17, a - 27 and a - 63 are convicted for the offence under section 449 ipc and each of them is sen fenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of rs. 200/ - in defualt to undergo simple imprisonment for 14 days. A - 5, a - 6, a - 8, a - 1 1, a - 12, a - 13, a - 14, a - 18, a - 20, a - 21, a - 22, a - 24, a - 25 and a - 63 are convicted for the offence under section 302 read with section 149 ipc and each of them is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of rs. 200/ - in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 14 days. Though a - 26 is also found guilty of the said charge under section 302 r/w. 149 ipc, as he is reported dead during trial, he is not convicted and sentenced for the said offence. A - 20 and a - 27 are convicted for the offence under section 326 ipc and are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years each and in addition to pay a fine of rs. 100/ - each. And in default to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of one week each. A - 35 is convicted for the offence under sec. 324 ipc and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. A - 2, a - 5, a - 8, a - 11, a - 17, a - 18, a - 19, a - 22, a - 27, a - 28, a - 33, a - 34, a - 37, a - 41, a - 45, a - 46, a - 47, a - 48, a - 53, a - 59, a - 60, a - 61 and a - 64 are convicted for the offence under section 324 ipc and each of them is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years; a - 3, a - 16, a - 29 and a - 44 are convicted for the offence under section 324 ipc under two counts and are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each on each of the two counts; a - 36 and a - 40 are convicted for the offence under section 324 ipc under three counts and are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each on each of the three counts. All the substantive sentences of imprisonments imposed upon the aforesaid accused are directed to run concurrently.

(3) The trial court, however, acquitted a - 7, a - 23, a - 30, a - 31, a - 32, a - 38, a - 39, a - 42, a - 43, a - 49, a - 50, a - 51, a - 52, a - 54, a - 55, a - 56, a - 57, a - 58 and a - 62 of the charge under section 148 ipc, a - 23 was acquitted of the charge under section 302 ipc, a - 7, a - 28, a - 29, a - 30, a - 31 and a - 32 are acquitted of the charge under section 302 ipc, a - 2, a - 4, a - 5, a - 6, a - 7, a - 8, a - 10, a - 11,a - 12, a - 13, a - 14, a - 15, a - 18, a - 19, a - 20, a - 21, a - 22, a - 23, a - 24, a - 25, a - 26 and a - 28 to a - 32 are acquitted of the charge under section 449 ipc. A - 1 to a - 4, a - 7, a - 9, a - 10, a - 1 5 to a - 17, a - 19, a - 23, a - 27 to a - 62 and a - 64 are acquitted of the charge under section302 r/w. 149 ipc. A - 8 is acquitted of the charge under section 326 ipc. Though a - 35 is found not guilty of the charge under section 326 ipc, as already stated above he is convicted for the offence under section 324 ipc. A - 1, a - 4 (two counts) , a - 6, a - 8, a - 11, a - 12 (two counts) , a - 13, a - 14 (two counts) , a - 17, a - 20, a - 28 (two counts) , a - 29, a - 32 to a - 39, a - 40 (two counts) , a - 42, a - 43, a - 46, a - 49, a - 50, a - 51, a - 52 (two counts) , a - 54, a - 55, a - 56 and a - 58 are acquitted of the charge under section 324 ipc.

(4) As a - 1 has been sentenced to death, the matter has been referred to this court for confirmation, and the same is registered as r. T. No. 3 of 1993. Having been aggrieved by their respective convictions and sentences for the various offences as noted above, a - 1 to a - 6, a - 8 to a - 22,a - 24, a - 25, a - 27, a - 28, a - 29, a - 33 to a - 37, a - 40, a - 41, a - 44 to a - 48, a - 53, a - 59, a - 60, a - 61, a - 63 and a - 64 have preferred criminal appeal no. 555 of 1993.

(5) As r. T. No. 3 of 1993 and crl. A. No. 555 of 1993 arise out of one and the same judgment of the learned additional sessions judge, in srikakulam, in s. C. No. 28 of 1989, dated 27th april, 1993 both are heard together and a common judgment is being pronounced.

(6) The case of the prosecution is briefly as follows: - a - 1 to a - 64, d - 1 to d - 4 and p. Ws. L to 28 are all residents of chennapuram village of narasannapeta mandal within the limits of narasannapeta police station. The accused, deceased and the injured witnesses belong to yadava community. Yadava community in chennapuram village is divided into two groups. One is headed by a - 1 and other headed by d - 4. The differences between the two groups reached to a maximum extent which ultimately led to the inspector of police, narasannapeta initiating proceedings under section 107 cr. P. C. Against about 30 persons of the prosecution group and 22 persons of the accused group, as is evidenced in the f. I. Rs. Exs. P - 120, p - 121 and p - 122. Ex. P - 120 is a photostat copy of the f. I. R. In crime no. 98/88, ex. P - 122 is a photostat copy of the f. I. R. In crime no. 99/88 and ex. P - 122 is the photostat copy of the information laid by the inspector of police before the court of the sub - divisional magistrate, srikakulam relating to crime no. 98/88 while ex. P - 123 is a photostat copy of the information laid by the inspector of police before the above said court relating to crime no. 99/88. Further, on the report given by a - 17 on 6 - 10 - 1988 alleging that d - 2 and d - 3 and three others beat him, a case in crime no. 132/88 under sections 147,323 and 324 ipc was registered and the same is pending as c. C. No. 213 of 1988 on the file of the judicial first class magistrate, narasannapeta. On the report given by the father of p. W. 5 that the husband of a - 54 and four others beat him, a case has been registered in crime no. 133/88 and the same is pending as c. C. No. 214 of 1988 on the file of the judicial first class magistrate, narasannapeta. There are some more cases also in between the two parties, vide crime nos. 78 and 95 of 1988. In view of the initiation of section 107 cr. P. C. Proceedings and the registration of cases one against the other for causing injuries to some of the prosecution party, they (prosecution party) felt that they are minor faction and apprehending danger at the hands of the major faction started living in harijan colony while maintainaing their houses in chennapuram. Chennapuram and harijan colony are separated by a way called 'gorja'. D - 1 to d - 4, in particular, as per the version of the eye witnesses shifted to harij in colony.

(7) 13 - 10 - 1988 happened to be a thursday, which was a shandy day in nereduvalasa village, a nearby village. Expecting that some of the persons belonging to the minor faction have gone to the shandy, as per the prosecution case, a - 1 to a - 64 armed themselves with deadly weapons like kattuvalu, spears, kamma kattulu, stout sticks and stones went to harijana colony on that day between 9 - 00 a. M. And 10 - 00 a. M. Where d - 1 to d - 4 and other prosecution witnesses are living. A - 1 shouted to kill everyone of the prosecution party that is coming in their way. The accused divided themselves into three batches and proceeded in different directions in the harijan colony. A - 1, a - 3, a - 6, a - 7, a - 9, a - 12, a - 13, a - 15, a - 16, a - 17, a - 27 to a - 32 and a - 63 and others trespassed into the houses of d - 3 and d - 4 and dragged them out of their houses. Similarly, the second group consisting of a - 2, a - 4, a - 5, a - 8, a - 14, a - 22, a - 24 and a - 26 dragged d - 2 out of his house, and the other set of accused, viz. , a - 10, a - 11, a - 18, a - 19, a - 20, a - 23, a - 24 and a - 25 attacked the house of d - 1 which is on the southern side.

(8) After d - 1 to d - 4 were dragged out of their respective houses, d - 3 was attacked by a - 1 by beating him with a kattuva on his head. A - 3 beat d - 3 on his head with a spear. A - 27 beat him on his head with a spear. Thereupon d - 3 fell down with bleeding injuries. A - 15 beat d - 3 on his forehead with a kamma katthi. A - 16 beat him on the right side of his chest with a stick. Again a - 1, a - 3 and others came and finding d - 3 struggling for life, beat him further till his death. P. W. 16, the elder brother of d - 4, who happened to return to harijan colony from lollapeta, was also beaten by a - 34 with a stick on his head, a - 35 with a kanti karra on his left fore - head, a - 36 with a kamma katthi on his left forehead and a - 19 beat him on his chest with a stick. A - 28, a - 29, and a - 32 pelted stones resulting in injuries on his left hand.

(9) A - 1, a - 6, a - 7, a - 9, a - 12, a - 13, a - 16, a - 17, a - 28 to a - 32 and others surrounded d - 4. A - 1 beat him on his head with a kattuva. A - 17 beat him on the back of his head with a kattuva. A - 7 beat d - 4 on his forehead with a kamma katthi. D - 4 fell down. A - 6 beat him on the left elbow with a kamma katthi. A - 9 beat him on the right shoulder with a stout stick. A - 12 beat him on the right side of his chest with the stick portion of kattuva. A - 13 beat him on his right ear with a stick. A - 16 beat him on the right side of his head with the stick portion of a spear. A - 28 beat him on the left middle finger with a stone. A - 29 beat him with a stone on the right dorsum a - 30 beat d - 4 on his right buttock with a stone. A - 31 beat him on his right shoulder and left chest with stones and a - 32 beat him with a stone on his left leg. P. W. 18 was at that time going for cooli work and he was attacked by a - 16 with a spear on his chin. A - 20 beat him with a kamma katthi on his left hand. A - 27 beat him on his fore arm with the stick portion of his spear. A - 39 beat him with a stick on the left leg and left ankle and a - 40 beat him on the left side of his stomach with a stick. P. W. 13 was also beaten by a - 48 with a stone on his left jaw, a - 8 beat him on his left forearm with a stick and a - 40 beat him with a stick on his left fore arm. P. W. 21 was also attacked by a - 5, a - 44, and a - 45 with sticks and a - 59 and a - 60 and a - 61 with stones. Again in the evening a - 1, a - 3 and others went to the house of d - 4 and finding him with life indiscriminately attacked.

(10) A - 2 beat d - 2 twice with a spear on his head. A - 4 speared on the back of his head. D - 2 fell down. A - 5 beat d - 2 on his right ear with a kamma katthi. A - 8 beat d - 2 on his chin and chest. A - 21 beat d - 2 on his right shoulder with a stick. A - 14 beat him on his chest with a stick. A - 22 beat him with a stick on his back. When p. W. 15 intervened, a - 12 beat him on his legs with the stick portion of kattuva, a - 28 beat him on his right dorsum with a stone and a - 33 beat him on the left fore arm with a stick. P. W. 6, who was present there, was also beaten by a - 14 on his left wrist with stout stick and a - 22 beat him on his left shoulder with a stone.

(11) A - 10 beat d - 1 with a spear on his left hand. A - 11 beat d - 1 with a kamma kathi on his left wrist. A - 19 beat him on his fore - head and left leg with a stout stick. D - 1 fell down. A - 20 beat d - 1 with a kamma kathi on his left cheek. A - 23 beat him with a stick on the left side of his back. A - 24 beat him with a stick on his buttock twice and also on his left hand and a - 25 beat him on the left buttock with a stick.

(12) It is further the case of the prosecution that all the accused went round the village and beat the prosecution witnesses whomsoever they had come across. In that process, p. W. 14 was beaten by a - 28 on his left fore arm with a metal stone and a - 29 beat him on the left side of his forehead with a metal stone. P. W. 16 was beaten by a - 34 on his right head with a stick. A - 35 beat p. W. 16 on his left head with a konti karra. A - 36 beat him on the left side of his head with a kamma kathi. A - 19 beat him on his chest with stick. A - 29 beat him on the lower upper arm with a metal stone and a - 37 beat him on his abdomen with a stick. A - 11 beat p. W. 17 with a kamma katthi on his right thumb. A - 37 beat him on the left side of his stomach with a stick and a - 38 beat him on his chest with a stick. A - 16 beat p. W. 18 on his left lower lip with a spear. A - 20 beat him on his left elbow with a kamma katthi. A - 27 beat him on the left thumb with a spear. A - 39 beat on the left ankle of p. W. 18 with a stick and a - 40 beat him on his left stomach with a stick. A - 8 beat p. W. 19 with a stick on his right hand. A - 40 beat p. W. 18 on his right elbow, left upper arm and right dorsum with a stick and a - 56 beat himon his right ear with a stick. P. W. 20 was beaten by a - 4 on his head with a spear. A - 41 stabbed p. W. 20 on his left hand with a tentu and a - 42 and a - 43 beat him with sticks on the left side of his stomach. A - 35 beat p. W. 22 on his right hand and right elbow with konti karra. A - 46 beat him on his head with a stick and a - 40 beat him with a stick on his left hand. A - 16 beat p. W. 23 with a spear on his right foot. A - 20 beat him with a stone on his left wrist. A - 2 beat him with a spear on his right shoulder. A - 17 with a katthuva on his left shoulder. A - 53 pelted stones causing injuries on his chest. P. W. 24 was beaten by a - 11 with a kamma katthi on his head. A - 12 with a stick on head; a - 34 with a stick on left wrist. A - 52 and a - 54 pelted stones which hit him on his chest. P. W. 25 was beaten by a - 47 with a spear on head. A - 48 poked on the chest with a stick. A - 36 beat him with a kamma katthi on his head. P. W. 26 was hit by a - 18 on head with a kamma katthi and a - 49 beat him onhis head with a kamma katthi. P. W. 27 was hit twice on the head with a spear by a - 33. A - 17 beat him with a katthuva on his left upper arm. A - 64 beat him with a kamma katthi on the back side of his head. A - 44 poked on his chest with a stick. A - 6 beat him on either side of his stomach with kamma katthi. A - 3 stabbed p. W. 28 on his head twice with a spear. A - 27 spread on the left head. A - 46 with a stick beat p. W. 28 on his shoulder arid a - 13 beat him with a stick on his right shoulder.

(13) P. W. 1, who witnessed the attack, went to chodavaram, which is one mile away from harijan colony and requested the postmaster to telephone to the police at narasannapeta. The postmaster told him that there is no response from the other side. Then p. W. 1 went back to harijana colony to gather more details. Though he went near harijana wada, he did not enter the same. Later he proceeded to narasannapeta and got ex. P - 1 report drafted by a boy and presented the same before the s. I. Of police (p. W. 47) at 4 - 00 p. M. P. W. 47 s. I of police, narasannapeta registered a case in crime no. 134/88 under sections 147,148,307,452,324 r/w. 149 ipc and issued the f. I. R. , ex. P - 108 and sent the same to the court. Exs. P - 1 and p - 108 reached the court at 11 - 00 p. M. On the very same night. In ex. P - 1 p. W. 1 mentioned the names of 19 persons as the assailants out of whom two names were repeated. In effect, p. W. 1 mentioned the names of a - 1 to a - 17 and 40 others as the assailants who have participated in the incident. P. W. 47, in his turn, informed the inspector of police, p. W. 48 and sub - divisional police officer, palakonda (p. W. 49) through vhf set. Thereafter p. W. 47 with his police men and p. W. 1 went to chennapuram and reached there at 6 - 00 p. M. One village servant, by name 'papadu' gave a report, ex. P - 94 at chennapuram to the effect that d - 1 to d - 4 were murdered in a struggle by a - 1 and his followers. P. W. 47 sent ex. P - 94 to the head constable p. W. 44 through p. W. 38 instructing him to alter the section of law into 302 ipc. At about 6 - 50 p. M. Both p. Ws. 48 and 49 reached harijan colony and took up the investigation. The altered f. I. R. Is ex. P - 105. On 14 - 10 - 1988 in the early hours, at about 4 - 00 a. M. P. W. 48 found a - 1, a - 11, a - 19, a - 23 and a - 24 on the outskirts of chennapuram and he produced them before p. W. 49 and on his instructions recorded the report given by a - ll, which is marked as ex. P - 124. P. W. 48 found injuries on those five accused persons and sent them to the government hospital at narasannapeta for treatment. Ex. P - 24, report given by a - 11, was registered in crime no. 135/88, as a counter case to crime no. 134/88. P. W. 49 sub - divisional police officer inspected the scene of offence and conducted panchanama regarding the scene of offence in the presence of p. W. 29 and ex. P - 2 is the observation report of the scene of offence. P. W. 49 held inquest over the dead bodies of d - 1, d - 2, d - 3 and d - 4, one after the other, in the presence of p. W. 29 and another inquest - panchayatdar and prepared the inquest reports, exs. P - 3, p - 4, p - 5 and p - 6 relating to d - 1, d - 2, d - 3 and d - 4 respectively. Thereafter, the dead bodies of d - 1 to d - 4 were sent to government hospital, narasannapeta for conducting post - mortem examination. P. W. 34 civil assistant surgeon, government hospital, narasannapeta for conducting post - mortem examination. P. W. 34 civil assistant surgeon, government hospital, narasannapeta conducted autopsy over the dead bodies of d - 2 and d - 4 on 14 - 10 - 1988 and issued the post - mortem certificates exs. P - 63 and p - 65. P. W. 37 medical officer, government hospital, narasannapeta conducted autopsy over the dead bodies of d - 1 and d - 3 and issued the post - mortem certificates, exs. P - 79 and p - 80. P. W. 34 examined the injured prosecution witnesses p. Ws. 6, 13,14,15 and 26 and issued the wound certificates exs. P - 67, p - 69, p - 68, p - 71 and p - 70 respectively. P. W. 34 also examined a - 1, a - 11, a - 19, a - 23 and a - 24 and issued the wound certificates exs. D - 31, d - 32, d - 33, d - 34 and d - 35 respectively. P. W. 37 examined the injured prosecution witnesses p. Ws. 16 to 25 and issued the wound certificates exs. P - 91, p - 82, p - 84, p - 89, p - 87, p - 88, p - 90, p - 86, p - 85 and p - 83 respectively. She also examined p. W. 27 and p. W. 28 and issued the wound certificates exs. P - 92 and 93 respectively. P. W. 45 s. I. Of police, amadalavalasa along with the a. S. I, of police, narasannapeta searched the houses of the accused on 14th and 15th of october, 1988 and seized three spears, two katthuvalu, and six male bamboo sticks and on 17 - 10 - 1988 p. W. 48 seized 2 kamma kathulu and 3 sticks. On 24 - 10 - 1988 p. W. 48 also seized one spear, 3 sticks, one kamma katthi and one konti karra and 9 kathuvas. After completion of investigation into the case, p. W. 49 referred the case in crime no. 135/88, which was registered basing on the statement given by a - 11, as mistake of fact, and filed the charge sheet in crime no. 134/88, registered on the basis of the report given by p. W. 1.

(14) After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the accused were examined under section 313 cr. P. C. In respect of the incriminating material available against each of them and they have denied all the incriminating material available against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The case of the accused is that a fight took place in the gorja in between chennapuram pedda veedhi and harijan colony and that it was a free fight and that from that gorja the dead bodies of d - 3 and d - 4 were brought and kept them at the respective places shown in the rough sketch ex. P - 128. The accused denied the prosecution case about their raiding the houses of the prosecution party in the harijan colony and they stated that the prosecution case is not the correct version. According to the accused, there was a free fight between the two groups at the relevant time.

(15) Mr. E. Ella reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants - accused contended that there is inordinate delay in giving the report and there is no explanation. There are laches on the part of the investigating agency. He has also contended that the present version is completely at variance with the version given in ex. P - 1. According to him, there are improvements in the case of the prosecution from stage to stage with regard to the number of accused and also about the manner of attack. He has further contended that the prosecution has failed to explain the injuries on a - 1, a - 11, a - 19, a - 23 and a - 24. He has finally contended that the common object of the unlawful assembly, even if it is held to be proved, was not to kill but only to beat the members of the opposite group and therefore the convictions under sections 302 r/w. Section 149 ipc are not correct. He has also submitted that the trial court has failed to make out a rarest of rare cases for awarding death sentence to a - 1.

(16) On the other hand, the learned public prosecutor has submitted that the trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence of the various prosecution witnesses and have given cogent reasons for convicting the various accused which does not call for interference.

(17) Ex. P - 3 is the inquest report relating to d - 1. The evidence of p. W. 49 sub - divisional police officer is to the effect that the inquest over the dead body of d - 1 was held from 7 - 30 a. M. To 9 - 30 a. M. On 14 - 10 - 1988 in the presence of p. W. 29 and another in quest panchyatdar. From9 - 30 a. M. To 11 - 30 a. M. Inquest was held over the dead body of d - 2 and ex. P - 4 is the inquest report relating to d - 2. Similarly, p. W. 49 held inquest over the dead body of d - 3 from 11 - 30 a. M. To 13 - 30 hours and inquest report relating to d - 3 is ex. P - 5 and inquest over the dead body of d - 4 was held from 13 - 30 hours to 15 - 30 hours and ex. P - 6 is the inquest report relating to d - 4. As seen from the above inquest reports exs. P - 3 to p - 6, the inquest panchayatdars including p. W. 29 are of the opinion that the cause of the death of d - 1 to d - 4 is the result of the injuries received by them in the attack.

(18) P. W. 37 civil assistant surgeon, taluk hospital, narasannapeta deposed that on the requisition from the sub - divisional police officer, srikakulam, she conducted post - mortem examination over the dead body of d - 1 on 14 - 10 - 1988 and found as many as 15 external injuries on the person of d - 1 and four internal injuries. The doctor is of the opinion that d - 1 would appear to have died of multiple injuries, fracture of the ribs on the left side and long bones on the left side, haemorrhage and shock, and that the cumulative effect of all the external injuries are sufficient, in the ordinary course of nature, to cause the death. She has also deposed that it is possible that the external injury no. 1 can be caused with m. O. 3 and external injury nos. 2 and 3 can be caused with m. O. 9 and external injury nos. 5 and 6 and other contusions can be caused with sticks like m. Os. 26 and 27. Ex. P - 79 is the post - mortem certificate relating to d - 1.

(19) P. W. 37 has also conducted the post - mortem examination over the dead body of d - 3 on the same day and found 11 external injuries and 8 internal injuries on the body of d - 3. She is of the opinion that d - 3 would appear to have died of multiple injuries and injury to the head, and the fracture of the ribs on the right side, fracture of the frontal bone, parietal bone, all these injuries leading to haemorrhage and shock. According to p. W. 37, all the external injuries are sufficient to cause the death of d - 3. Ex. P - 80 is the post - mortem certificate relating to d - 3.

(20) P. W. 34 conducted post - mortem examination over the dead body of d - 2 on 14 - 10 - 1988 and found as many as 20 external injuries and he is of the opinion that the deceased (d - 2) would appear to have died of multiple injuries and fracture of ribs on the right side and fracture of skull on the right side and haemorrhage of the scalp and also shock. Ex. P - 63 is the post - mortem certificate issued by him in respect of d - 2. According to the doctor p. W. 34, the cumulative effect of all the injuries are sufficient to cause the death of a human being in the ordinary course of nature.

(21) P. W. 34, also conducted post - mortem examination over the dead body of d - 4 on 15 - 10 - 1988 at 10 - 00 a. M. And found 12 external injuries. He is of the opinion that the deceased (d - 4) would appear to have died of multiple injuries, fractures of ribs, fracture of left tibia, haemorrhage and shock. Ex. P - 65 is the post - mortem certificate issued by p. W. 34 in respect of d - 4. The doctor further opined that the cumulative effect of all the injuries are sufficient to cause the death of a human being in the ordinary course of nature. According to the doctor, the first two external injuries on the head may be caused with m. Os. 5 and 7 and the other injuries may be caused with sticks covered by m. O. 12 and m. O. 25.

(22) As already stated above, p. W. 34 the medical officer also examined p. Ws. 6,13,14,15 and 26 and issued the wound certificates exs. P - 67, p - 69, p - 68, p - 71 and p - 70 respectively. According to p. W. 34, all the injuries found on the persons of the above injured are simple in nature. Similarly, p. W. 37 examined p. Ws. 17 to 25,27 and 28 and issued the wound certificates exs. P - 82,84,89,87, 88,90, 86, 85,83, 92 and 93 respectively.

(23) Thus, the evidence of both the doctors, p. Ws. 34 and 37 coupled with the post - mortem certificates exs. P - 63, p - 65, p - 79 and p - 80 and the various wound certificates clearly indicate that the deceased persons and the injured persons have received the injuries which were caused by third parties in the attack and that they are not self - inflicted. P. W. 34 also examined a - 1, a - 11, a - 19, a - 23 and a - 24 and issued the wound certificates exs. D - 31, d - 32, d - 33, d - 34 and d - 35. According to the doctor, all the injuries found on the persons of a - 1, a - 11, a - 19, a - 23 and a - 24 are simple in nature. The age of the injuries as is spoken to by the doctors in respect of the injuries found by them on the persons of the prosecution witnesses or the accused persons, as the case may be, suggests that all of them have received those injuries at or about the same time in the attack that took place on the date of incident and consequently the presence of those persons at that particular time when the incident took place cannot be disputed.

(24) The defence theory is that the incident took place in a gorja situate in between chennapuram and harijan colony. The said gorja is said to be only of 6 paras width. In none of the inquest reports or the observation reports ex. P - 2 and ex. P - 128 rough sketch of the scene of offence we did not find any indication or a trace or a semblance that the incident took place in the said gorja situate in between chennapuram and the harijan colony. The rough sketch ex. P - 128 and the places where the dead bodies were found indicate more probable that the incident took place in the harijan colony but not in the gorja. Even the report ex. P - 124 given by a - 11 which was submitted on the intervening night of 13/14 - 10 - 1988 at 4 - 00 a. M. Does not indicate the exact place of incident. It is only mentioned in ex. P - 124 that the groups headed by a - 1 and d - 4, one being a larger group and another being a smaller group, fought with each other at about 9 - 00 to 10 - 00 a. M. And that during that scuffle some of the accused party have received injuries. The statement given by a - 11 is so vague. It was given after much delay. It does not support the present version of the accused themselves especially in regard to the place where the incident took place, viz. , gorja, as is contended by the defence but not in harijan colony. It is the case of the prosecution as well as the defence that there were ill - feelings between the groups, i. E. , among the yadava community people residing in chennapuram. The section 107 cr. P. C proceedings as evidence by exs. P - 120 to p - 123 and the pendency of criminal cases unhesitatingly establish that the disputes between the two groups reached to the maximum extent and if one party comes across another party member they are not tolerating and causing injuries and even enmity extended among the women folk of the two groups also and the women folk of one are not on talking terms with the women - folk of the other. In this background it is evident that the smaller group headed by d - 4 have felt that they would not be safe if they remain still in chennapuram village and so they shifted to harijan colony retaining their belongings in their houses at pedda veedhi of chennapuram where they feel that they will be safe. At one stage some of the prosecution witnesses stated that they have shifted to some other place though they have not mentioned harijan colony. However, the consistent case of the prosecution, supported by the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and other circumstances is that in view of the tension prevailing in chennapuram they left all their belongings in their houses in pedda veedhi and shifted to harijan colony for safety and this can be accepted without any hesitation in view of the ill - feelings which arose upto the maximum height by the date of incident.

(25) The incident took place on a thursday, which happened to be a shandy day, at neredvalasa. As it is a shandy day, the evidence discloses, that some of the persons belonging to the smaller group of the prosecution parry may go to the shandy. It is for that reason the accused party, which is larger in number, making preparations to attack the prosecution party chosing that particular time, thinking the prosecution party people will come to the shandy and they can be attacked, cannot be ruled out. The prosecution party people having temporarily shifted to harijan colony leaving all their belongings at their residential houses in pedda veedhi, they cannot be expected to keep along with them weapons anticipating attack as they feel that they will be safe in harijan colony. So the attack by the accused group arming with deadly weapons like kattuvas, sticks etc. , who are large in number, on the prosecution party who were taking shelter in harijan colony or who were passing in that harijan colony, as spoken to by the prosecution witnesses, can be accepted. The presence of injuries on most of the prosecution witnesses also suggests their presence at the scene of offence. But on the side of the accused group, there are simple injuries only on five of the accused persons. Even though the prosecution party are smaller in group, most of their members have received injuries and four of them died. It may be that as they are not possessing any weapons, during the fight they may take some weapons from the accused while the prosecution party witnesses are being beaten or attacked and in their self - defence they might have caused some simple injuries on only five persons of the accused party. When large number of persons are attacking the smaller group and causingserious injuries, the smaller group are expected to retaliate them in their defence. In that retaliation process some of the accused party, viz. , a - 1, a - 11, a - 19, a - 23 and a - 24, might have received some simple injuries, particularly when the leader of the prosecution party, viz. , d - 4 was attacked and was done to death and three more members of their party were also killed and most of their party men received grievious and simple injuries at the hands of the accused, at least the injured witnesses would not have spared the persons without attacking them in their self - defence and retaliation. The contention of the accused that it is a sudden free fight, as is sought to be made out from the answers given by the accused in their examination under section 313 cr. P. C. Particularly in view of their statement ex. P - 124 cannot be accepted. Where larger number of persons, consisting of more than 60 persons, attacked smaller group and caused injuries to most of the members of the smaller group, we cannot infer that there is a free fight. In the case of an attack of this type it is very difficult for the witnesses to mention all injuries received by each and every injured person and the names of all the persons who attacked who. If such an attempt is made, it will be nothing but the result of a tutored version or an attempt to create false evidence rather than giving out true case of the prosecution. In fact, in the case of the injuries caused to d - 3, particularly injury nos. 7 to 10 are concerned, no witness has mentioned about those injuries, the prosecution witnesses also have not consistently stated attributing overt acts of d - 4 in a tutored manner. The learned public prosecutor contended that it is not a free fight, as is alleged by the accused but it is a pre - planned and pre - meditated attack by the accused group and in pursuance of their pre - plan they attacked the persons belonging to the prosecution party in harijan colony and caused injuries and so when a large number of persons armed with deadly weapons attacked a small group of unarmed persons, it cannot be termed as a free fight or a sudden fight. It is relevant to consider the case law on the subject.

(26) In bhoor singh vs. State of punjab the three appellants, who are brothers, were tried for the murders of sardara singh, gain singh and harnek singh and the appellant's own brother, baldev singh and ajit singh was convicted under section 302, ipc and 302 r/w. 34 ipc, bhoor singh was convicted under section 302 and 302 r/w. 34 ipc and also under section 307 ipc and kewal singh was convicted under section 302 r/w. 34 ipc and also under section 326 ipc. While dealing the appeals preferred by the three accused, the supreme court observed as follows: -

"it is noteworthy that the prosecution has not given any explanation whatever, of the. Injuries of ajit singh. The conclusion is, therefore, unescapable that there was a fight between two armed parties - the three appellants on one side and the numerically superior party of sardar singh on the other. It was in that combat that ajit singh appellant was injured and baldev singh killed by the complainant party and the other deceased persons by the opposite party (the appellants). Though the appellants had failed to show that the party of sardar singh deceased were the aggressors, yet, on the basis of the material on record, every possibility of the gun fire having been opened after ajit. Singh and baldev singh had been assaulted, could not be ruled out. Inter alia, sardara singh's exhortation to his armed companions that they could not stand against guns, was a pointer towards such a possibility. The above circumstances, although insufficient to make out a plea of private defence or to palliate the offence, could legitimately be taken into account in choosing between the sentence of life or of death."

In ishwar singh vs. State of u. P. 2, relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants, while considering the appeals preferred by the appellants who stood convicted for the offences under sections 302 and 302 r/w. 149 ipc and for some other sections, the supreme court observed as follows: -

". The infirmities in the prosecution case make it difficult to believe that the trouble originated in the manner alleged by the prosecution. Having regard to the injuries sustained by some of the prosecution witnesses and also by two of the accused, it seems that there was a free fight between the two sides. The defence version of the occurrence may not also be quite true, but considering all the circumstances we do not think it is possible to say with any certainty that the accused were the aggressors though undoubtedly the prosecution side got the worse of it after the fight was started. If really the accused were not the aggressors, no case either under section 147 or section 148 of the penal code can be maintained against them, and then it is for the prosecution to prove the individual assaults of which mere is no evidence. The conviction of appellants illam singh, harpal, brahm singh and deep chand under section 326, section 324 and section 323 of the penal code, founded against each of them on the basis of section 149 of the code is not therefore sustainable."

It was further observed by the supreme court in the above cited case, on which the learned counsel for the appellants has laid great stress, as follows: -

"where the trial court in convicting the appellants overlooked certain significant features of the case, namely, the inordinate and unexplained delay in despatching the first information report to the magistrate, the differences in the account given by the prosecution witnesses and as appearing from the first information report of the occurrence, the absence of any statement in the first information report as to the injuries received by some of the accused, and the non - examination of material witnesses and the high court in affirming the judgment of the trial court also failed to advert to these circumstances, it was held that the case against the appellants had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and the order of conviction and the sentences passed on the appellants should be set aside."

In puran vs. State of rnjasthan, while considering the appeal, by special leave, preferred by the appellant, which arose out of an internecine fight between two brothers and their respective families resulting in the death of the deceased kanna and bhanwaria and grievous hurt with dangerous weapons to babulal and others in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly constituted by them, the supreme court observed as follows: -

"in a case of sudden mutual fight between the two parties, there can be no question of invoking the aid of section 149 for the purpose of imposing constructive criminal liability on the accused. The accused in such a case can be convicted only for the injuries caused by him by his individual acts."

It was further observed by the supreme court in that case that the fight between the parties took place in one stage and not in two stages as deposed to by the prosecution witnesses.

(27) In lalji vs. State of hp. While considering the effect of sections 149 and 141 ipc the supreme court observed as follows: -

". In the circumstances, in our opinion it cannot be said that the appellants who were present in front of their hut formed an unlawful assembly. An assembly of five or more persons is designated an unlawful assembly if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is to do any of the acts mentioned in the five clauses of section 141 indian penal code. According to the explanation to that section, an assembly which was not unlawful when it assembled may subsequently become an unlawful assembly. The facts found by the high court and the circumstances of the case do not show that the appellants formed a common object to do any of the acts mentioned in the five clauses of section 141. Reference has been made to clause (4) of section 141, according to which an assembly of five or more persons whould be unlawful if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is to enforce any right or supposed right by means of criminal force or show of criminal force. This clause cannot be of much avail because it cannot be said that the common object of the appellants was to enforce any right or supposed right by means of criminal force or show of criminal force. The cricumstances of the case show that lathis were then wielded by the appellants, other than lalji, not with a view to enforce any right or supposed right in respect of the water channel but because of the fact that a fight had started and the complainant's party was found to be armed. As there was no premeditation and the occurrence was a sudden affair, each of the appellants, in our opinion, should be held to be liable for his individual act and not vicariously liable for the acts of others."

In munir khan vs. State of u. P. It was held by the supreme court that in a mutual fight there is no object and so none of the accused can be convicted by having recourse to section 149.

(28) The decision of the supreme court, reported in k. N. Virji vs. State of gujarat is also a case arising out of a free fight between the two groups and the supreme court considered the effect of sections 149 and 34 ipc and it was held by the supreme court 149 and 34 ipc and it was held by the supreme court as follows: -

"where there was a melee at the time of the incident and the two groups indulged in a free fight resulting in injuries to persons of both groups and death of two, if the court comes to the conclusion that the injuries sustained by the persons were in the course of a free fight, then only those persons who are proved to have caused injuries or death can be held guilty for the offence individually committed by them."

(29) In babu singh and others vs. State of rajasthan it was held by the division bench of the rajasthan high court (jaipur bench) as follows: -

"in the case of a free fight between two rival groups equipped with arms such as spears, lathis and sharp edged weapons when there is no reliable evidence on the record to hold as to what exactly transpired at the time of the incident and who acted as the aggressor and who dealt the first blow and the truth is so inextricably mixed up with falsehood that it is impossible to separate them and in the process of separation the court will have to reconstruct absolutely a new case for the prosecution by diverting the essential details presented by the prosecution completely from the context, the evidence must be rejected in its entirety. In criminal trial it is of prime importance for the accused to know as to what the exact case of the prosecution is. If the pivot of the prosecution case cannot be made by the court to imperil the defence and convict the accused on that basis."

(30) The sum and substance of the above decisions is that in the case of a free fight between two rival groups armed with deadly weapons, the court has to consider the evidence of the prosecution witnesses carefully.

(31) Now we shall consider the case on hand keeping in view the principles laid down by the various courts in the above cited decisions and see how they are helpful to the accused.

(32) A careful scrutiny of the evidence of the prosecution leads us to the irresistible conclusion that the prosecution party were not armed with any weapons and it is only the accused party that are armed with deadly weapons like kamma katthulu, spears, kattuvalu, stout sticks etc. In the process of the attack by the accused party, who are numbering more than sixty, using the deadly weapons, there is every possibility of some of the prosecution witnesses snatching away the weapons while they were being beaten by the accused and in retaliation they might have caused some simple injuries and in that process the receipt of simple injuries by five of the accused cannot be ruled out. It is not a clash or free fight between the two parties, armed with deadly weapons. Only one party, viz. , the accused party is proved to be armed with deadly weapons and they attacked the prosecution party and caused injuries. It is the consistant case of the prosecution witnesses that because of the tension or apprehension of attack, the prosecution party already left their houses and stayed at harijan colony. On 13 - 10 - 1988 expecting that some of the persons belonging to the prosecution party have gone to the shandy, the accused party armed themselves with deadly weapons went to the harijana colony and attacked the prosecution party. This itself is a clear indication of their pre - plan. The evidence discloses that the accused party wanted to kill d - 1 to d - 4 and also to beat the other members of the faction of d - 4 in order to gain supremacy in the village. It is only with that object, on 13 - 10 - 1988 taking advantage of the absence of some of the members of the prosecution they having gone to a shandy in neredivalasa, all the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons like kattuvalu, spears, kamma kattulu and stout sticks and went to the harijan colony with the common intention to kill them.

(33) Another contention raised by the learned defence counsel is that the prosecution has not explained the injuries found on the persons of five accused and that the failure to explain the same has to be viewed that the prosecution suppressed the genesis of the case and that they have come up with a false case. In this connection it is necessary to refer to the evidence of the doctor who examined a - 1, a - 11, a - 19, a - 23 and a - 24, to know the nature of injuries sustained by them.

(34) P. W. 34 civil assistant surgeon, government hospital, narasannapeta, as already stated, has examined these five injuried accused persons and gave the wound certificates exs. D - 31 to d - 35. P. W. 34 deposed that on 14 - 10 - 1988 she examined a - 1 and found a cut injury on the head, an oval contusion over the forehead and only complaint of pain in the right shoulder. She opined that all the injuries are simple in nature. Ex. D - 31 is the wound certificate issued by him. On the same day the doctor examined a - 2 and found a cut injury to the head, a lacerated injury to the dorsum of the left thumb, an abrasion to the posterior aspect of the left elbow, a contusion to the posterior aspect of the chest and an abrasion to the posterior part of the hip on the left side. He is of the opinion that all the injuries are simple in nature. Ex. D - 32 is the wound certificate relating to a - 11. He also examined a - 19 and found a lacerated injury to the head, a contusion to the chin, and a contusion to the lower part of the leg. The doctor is of the opinion that the injuries are simple in nature. Ex. D - 33 is the certificate issued by him. He also examined a - 23 and found a diffused contusion to the lateral aspect and dorsum of the right palm, a laceration to the anterior part of the right leg and an abrasion to the right shoulder. All the injuries are certified to be simple in nature and ex. D - 34 is the wound certificate issued by him. On the same day he examined a - 24 and found a cut injury on the centre of the head, a small abrasion on the right side of the head, a cut injury to the lateral aspect and lower part of fore arm, a cut injury to the tip of the left thumb, a diffused contusion to the dorsum of the left hand, a small abrasion to the dorsal aspect of the left elbow, a cut injury on the back, an abrasion on the back of the chest on the left side, an oval shape contusion on the back of the upper arm, an oval contusion on the posterior aspect of the right leg, a contusion on the back of the left shoulder and an oval contusion on the back of the elbow. The doctor is of the opinion that all the injuries are simple in nature. The wound certificate issued by him is ex. D - 35. The doctor deposed that the age of the injuries found on the above persons may be from 12 to 36 hours.

(35) Thus, a reading of the medical evidence discloses that all the injuries sustained by a - 1, a - 11, a - 19, a - 23 and a - 24 are only simple in nature. As already stated above, the possibility of the receipt of the injuries by the above injured accused persons may be on account of some of the prosecution witnesses retaliating them while they were being severely attacked armed with deadly weapons. Even otherwise, it is very difficult for the prosecution witnesses to explain how a - 1, a - 11, a - 19, a - 23 and a - 24 received the injuries as the prosecution witnesses were attacked by more than sixty persons. The injuries were only simple in nature. This is a clear case of the accused faction attacking the deceased faction. In that process, it may be true that few of the accused party might have sustained injuries. This can be presumed that they sustained the same while the deceased party people were exercising their right of private defence in protecting themselves from the attack by the accused. Even the case registered on the basis of the report given by a - 11 is stated to have been referred by the police as mistake of fact. Under these circumstances it cannot be said that the non - explanation of the injuries on a - 1, a - 11, a - 19, a - 23 and a - 24 does not amount to suppressing the genesis of the prosecution case. In fact simple and trivial injuries said to have been sustained by the accused, which are minor and superficial in nature, need not be explained by the prosecution. Failure of the prosecution to explain such minor and superficial injuries said to have been sustained by the accused, in the particular facts and circumstances of the given case does not affect the prosecution case.

(36) Now, coming to ex. P - 1 reportby p. W. 1, p. W. 47 sub - inspector of police, narasannapeta deposed that on 13 - 10 - 1988 around 16 hours while he was in police station p. W. 1 came to the station and gave ex. P - 1 report and he registered it as crime no. 134/88 under sections 147,148,307, 452, 324 r/w. Section 109 ipc. Ex. P - 108 is the f. I. R. The original f. I. R. Along with ex. P - 1 report given by pw. 1 were sent to the judicial magistrate of the first class, narasannapeta and they reached the magistrate at 11 - 00 p. M. On the same day. P. W. 47 has stated in his cross - examina tion that after registration of ex. P - 108, he did not despatch the same with ex. P - 1 to the magistratebut entrusted them to p. W. 44 instructing him to immediately hand them over to the magistrate. However, he denied the suggestion that ex. P - 1 was not handed over to him in the police station at 4 - 00 p. M. On 13 - 10 - 1988. P. W. 47 further deposed that after registering the case and despatching the copies to the concerned officers and after informing the inspector of police on v. H. P. Set about the crime, himself and p. W. 1 along with his staff went to chennapuram and reached that place by 18 - 00 hours. According to p. W. 47, at that place one d. Papadu gave ex. P - 94 report stating that d - 1 to d - 4 were murdered. He sent ex. P - 94 to the head constable p. W. 44 through p. W. 38 and p. W. 44 head constable deposed that ex. P - 94 reached him at 7 - 30 p. M. And he altered the f. I. R. To section 302 ipc. The altered f. I. R. Is ex. P - 105. The delay in receipt of the original f. I. R. Ex. P - 108 or the altered f. I. R. Ex. P - 105 is commented by the learned counsel, mr. E. Ella reddy, appearing on behalf of the accused stating that the prosecution deliberately took time to weave out a story duly taking into account the injuries received by the prosecution party people. We do not find much force in this submission. Since the village was in tension and several persons were injured and particularly four of their party members, including the leader, died, and when he apprehended that he will also be beaten he left that place for chodavaram which is at a distance of about one mile from chennapuram and went to the post office and requested the post master to telephone to the narasannapeta police informing about the incident of murders. When the post - master told him that there was no response from the police station, p. W. 1 returned back to harijan colony but out of fear and as the accused were round that colony armed with weapons, he did not enter into harijan colony but he proceeded to narasannapeta. On the way he requested one boy to write a report and the boy wrote the report as per the details given by him and he delivered it before the sub - inspector of police p. W. 47 at 4 - 00 p. M. On the same day. The explanation given by p. W. 1 appears to be quite natural. Immediately after receipt of ex. P - 1 report, the police acted upon it and took steps and commenced investigation. The police party reached the scene of offence by 6 - 00 p. M. The normal practice is that during night times inquests will not be done. Further in this case four dead bodies were there. A reading of ex. P - 1 report coupled with the evidence of p. W. 1 does no t give room to suggest that ex. P - 1 is a concocted one. If really the prosecution wants to cook up a case, p. W. 1 would not have failed to mention the names of all the accused persons on being prompted by the leaders of the prosecution party. The mentioning of only 17 names and stating "and others" itself suggests the genuineness of ex. P - 1. By the time ex. P - 1 report was given p. W. 1 was not aware of the deaths of the four deceased persons and if ex. P - 1 is a cooked up document, he would not have fialed to mention the deaths of four deceased. The f. I. R. Is meant only to set the criminal law into motion. All the details of the incident need not be mentioned. It is only after the talari gave the report ex. P - 94 the police came to know of the deaths and immediately the f. I. R. Was altered. This also suggests that the police started investigation with due speed and promptitude. In a case where the police have started investigation immediately after receipt of the report and took steps by sending the injured persons to the hospital, it cannot be said that there is delay either on the part of p. W. 1 in giving the report or there is delay in despatch of the f. I. R. To the magistrate or in the commencement of investigation by the police.

(37) In this connection it is necessary to refer to the decision of the supreme court reported in sarjan singh vs. State of punjab wherein the supreme court, while dealing with the contention regarding the delay in giving the report and also the delay in despatch of the f. I. R. , observed that delay in despatch of the first information report is not a circumstance which can throw out the prosecution case in its entirety. In pain singh vs. State of punjab'' also the supreme court observed as follows: -

"but when we find in this case that the f. I. R. Was actually recorded without delay and the investigation started on the basis of that f. I. R. And there is no other infirmity brought to our notice, then, however, improper or objectionable the delayed receipt of the report by the magistrate concerned it cannot by itself justify the conclusion that the investigation was tainted and the prosecution insupportable."

The delay in giving ex. P - 1 report is properly explained by p. W. 1. Consequently we find that there is no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the accused that there is inordinate delay.

(38) Admittedly this is a case which arose on account of party factions. In a factious village naturally the witnesses available will be partisan witnesses and no independent witness will come forward and depose against a particular party for the fear that he may become an enemy to the other faction. In factious cases the names of the innocents are not unoften tacked on to the really guilty ones. It is, therefore, necessary that in such cases the court should scrutinise the evidence of partisan witnesses with particular care to exclude the danger that out of spite or enmity all the important members of the opposite faction are | implicated so as to destroy them root and branch. It is important that evidence of such partisan witnesses be scrutinised with more than ordinary care and in particular sweeping statements and wholesale implications should be received with utmost caution. In this case the presence of the injured witnesses cannot be ruled out. The injured witnesses though partisan would be the last persons to screen the real culprit who caused injuries on them and falsely involve innocent person, merely on the ground that that person belongs to theopposite party. The strained relations were already there between the parties and reached the surface by the time of the initiation of section 107 cr. P. C proceedings and filing of the criminal cases. The learned sessions judge has extracted the main principles laid down in various decisions of the supreme court and considered the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in those lines. It is not a rule that if a witness is shown to be either a partisan witness or a relative of the victim his evidence should not be accepted. All that can be said is that his testimony should be scrutinised with great care and due caution. While considering the evidence of a partisan wi (ness we have to see the capaci ty of the person giving the evidence to reproduce the facts, and his nature. It may also be seen that uneducated witnesses or those who are not accustomed to the ways of the court do, in their confusion of thought, create discrepancies under a severe test of cross - examination. But, on that account their story, if honest and substantially true, should not be rejected. Here the parties belong to yadava community residing in a small village. They are all illiterate village rustics and they are not accustomed to give evidence on oath being subjected to cross - examination by a well - trained legal expert like an advocate appearing on behalf of the accused. The omissions and contradictions elicited also have got a material bearing on the appreciation of evidence. The contradictions and discrepancies may flow from natural witnesses, and they are natural and inevitable in the testimony of even truthful witnesses. The version given by two persons regarding the same aspect may be different. One person may give the version in one way and the other person may give in some other way. Their power of appreciation or expression also differs. The discrepancies, therefore, both as a result of inattention to details and due to natural tendency to exaggerate or belittle are but natural and inevitable. Indeed, the absence of such discrepancies may, in a large number of cases, be atributable to tutoring. The discrepancies may sometimes be due to confusion of thought when the witness is subjected to a severe test of cross - examination by a well trained advocate. It is impossible to expect any witness much less an illiterate witness to describe the particulars as to time and distance and the movements of persons in such a scientific detail as to stand the test of calculation. It is also well settled proposition of law that the contradictions elicited in the evidence of a witness and exhibited in his statements before police under section 161 (3) cr. P. C. Are not substantive evidence on oath. Such contradictions cannot be made use of or have the factual or legal effect such contradictions do not have the same effect as substantive evidence given on oath in a court. It may also be remembered that when the witness was examined after a long time after the date of offence, some omissions and contradictions are bound to occur. It is the duty of the court to separate the grain from the chaff. In this case, as already stated the incident took place at two places in harijan colony.

(39) It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that two persons daundagi surayya and daundagi chinna appadu, though they were cited as eye witnesses, were not examined by the prosecution and in fact they are independent witnesses as they belong to a different caste but they were given up by the prosecution. It is true that out of the witnesses cited in the charge - sheet, those two persons daundagi surayya and chinna appadu were given up. It may be noted that in the memo filed by the learned additional public prosecutor giving up those two witnesses, it is stated that these two cited witnesses were won over by the accused. The lower court has also considered this aspect and has given cogent reasons for not examining the two persons. Even as per their section 161 cr. P. C. Statements also they stated that when a - 1 instigated his party people of 60 to 70 to beat whoever is found, out of fear they went inside their houses and closed the doors and came out only in the evening. So even if these persons are examined their evidence will give only circumstances prior to the actual offence, but they may not speak about who beat d - 1 to d - 4 or the injured witnesses. Therefore, the non - examination of these two persons is not a material ground to discredit the testimony of the other witnesses and no prejudice is caused to the accused also.

(40) In this case there are several women accused out of whom a - 28, a - 29, a - 53, a - 59, a - 60 and a - 61 are convic ted by the trial court. As per the evidence of p. W. 29 the inquest panchayatclar, it is seen that the dead body of d - 1 was found on the southern side of the road, and there are also stones and brick pieces and they were seized by the police. As per ex. P - 1 the earliest report given by p. W. 1 there is no mention about any of the accused having been armed with stones. But when we see the evidence, it is stated that the women accused brought some stones and with those stones they beat the injured p. Ws. Also. It cannot but be said that it is an improvement in that respect only. In villages generally some small type stones will be available on the road and when p. W. 49 made an inspection of the scene of offence he might have seen them and got a note of the presence of stones incorporated in the observation report or in the inquest report in ex. P - 3 relating to d - 1. Since the partisan nature has been extended to the women folk also in the village and the women folk of one party is not on talking terms with the women folk of other party it is but natural that the prosecution witnesses may implicate some women folk of the accused party also. Since it is not mentioned in the earliest report ex. P - 1 that stones were used by the women accused and since stones were not seized from the dead bodies of d - 2, d - 3 and d - 4 and since it is a partisan case the possibility of the ladies also being implicated we feel that benefit of doubt can be given to the ladies. The lower court has rightly extended benefit of doubt to most of the lady accused on some ground or other but however convicted a - 28, a - 29, a - 53, a - 59, a - 60 and a - 61. We feel that these ladies also are entitled to benefit of doubt. If the incidenthad taken place in their residential locality the possibility of the women folk of the accused group also participating in the incident and using stones, chilly powder or rice pounders etc. , may be there. But in this case the incident had taken place in harijan colony, which is far off to their residential houses. We cannot expect that women folk also accompanies the male accused for attacking the prosecution party. The fact that benefit of doubt has been extended to these women accused does not mean that the court has to disbelieve the version of the injured witnesses. As we have already observed that in partisan cases it is duty of the court to scrutinise the evidence of the prosecution witnesses with great care and caution and after doing so, if the court coines to the conclusion that there is some doubt with regard to some of the accused, the benefit of doubt must be given to those accused alone and the remaining accused can be convicted. The evidence of a particular witness need not be accepted in full. Time and again the supreme court and various high courts held that such portion of the evidence which appears to be more convincing and nearer to truth can be accepted.

(41) While considering the attack on the deceased and the injured witnesses, as they are already partisan witnesses and as the explanation offered by the prosecution in giving up two independent witnesses has been accepted, we have to see the general trend of the oral testimony. Generally speaking oral testimony in a criminal case may be classified into three categories, namely (1) wholly reliable (2) wholly unreliable and (3) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. It is in the third category of cases tha t the court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial. The fact that considered as a whole the prosecution story may be true is not enough because between "may be true" and "must be true" there is a long distance to travel. This distance must be covered by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence. While considering the distance we have to consider the class from which the wi tnesses came and their background and motive. In the case of attack near the houses of the deceased or the injured, the persons residing in the houses along with the injured witnesses are the natural witnesses. One may speak about the injuries sustained by him alone and another may speak about the injuries sustained by him but they may not be in a position to speak about the injuries sustained by others especially in a fight where more than sixty persons attacked the prosecution party. Even the statements of witnesses recorded by the police under section 161 (3) cr. P. C. Can be used only for the purpose of contradicting a prosecution witness in the manner indicated in section 145 of the evidence act and for no other purpose. They cannot be used for the purpose of seeking corroboration or assurance for the testimony of the witness in court. When the wi tnesses hail from villages and they are rustics and uneducated and when they are examined by a legal expert like an able advocate there are bound to occur some omissions and contradictions. Merely because there are good number of contradictions and omissions, it does not mean that the witness is wholly unreliable. It is for the court to consider whether such omission or contradiction touches or destroys the material aspect of the case which ultimately strikes the court to think that he is not a reliable witness. The lower court has got the facility of observing the demeanour of the witness and even by observing the demeanour of the witness the court can come to a just conclusion even without corroboration from the medical evidence. Keeping in view the above broad principles we have to analyse the different overt acts on the deceased as well as on the injured.

(42) Coming to the charge relating to the murder of d - 1, p. Ws. L, 2,3 and 24 are the direct witnesses. According to the evidence of p. W. 1, who gave the report ex. P - 1 before the police, he saw d - 1 being beaten by the accused near an electric pole by the side of the matti road near the house of one dundangi polayya. A - 10 beat d - 1 on his head with a spear. A - 11 beat d - 1 with a kamma katti underneath the left ear of d - 1. A - 19 beat d - 1 with a stout stick on the left leg of his, above his left ankle. A - 19 also beat d - 1 on the fore - head of d - 1 with a stout stick. P. W. 2 baddi thavitamma deposed that on the date of offence, when himself, d - 1 and his younger sister ramulamma were inside their house, a - 10, a - 19, a - 24 and a - 23 went into their house and dragged out d - 1 from out of their house upto the electric pole on the matti road. There a - 18, a - 11, a - 25, a - 20 were also present and a - 20 was holding a kamma katti. A - 11 was holding a kamma ka tti. A - 18 was holding a kamma katti. A - 24 was holding a s tout stick. A - 25 was holding a stout stick. After so dragging away d - 1 to that place, a - 10 beat d - 1 on his head with a spear, a - 11 beat d - 1 below and behind his left ear with a kamma katti, a - 18 beat d - 1 with a kamma katti on the left wrist of d - 1. A - 19 beat d - 1 with a stout stick on the fore head and above the left ankle. Thereupon d - 1 fell down. Then a - 24 beat d - 1 on his buttocks with a stout stick. A - 24 also beat d - 1 on the left upper arm of d - 1 with a stout stick. A - 20 also beat d - 1 on the left cheek with a kamma katti. P. W. 2 is not other than the daughter of d - 1. P. W. 3 patta ramulu is the son of d - 1. As regards the attack of d - 1, this witness deposed that a - 10 beat d - 1 on his head with a spear. A - 11 beat d - 1 with a kamma katti behind and below his left ear. A - 19 beat d - 1 with a stout stick on the fore head of d - 1 as well as on his left leg above the ankle. D - 1 fell down. Then a - 18 beat d - 1 with a kamma katti on his left wrist. A - 20 beat d - 1 with a kamma katti on his left cheek. A - 23 beat d - 1 on his back, with a stout stick. A - 24 beat d - 1 on his buttocks with a stout stick. A - 24 beat d - 1 on his left upper arm with a stick and a - 25 beat d - 1 with a stout stick on his buttocks and due to these injuries d - 1 died. The next witness who spoke about the attack on the deceased no. 1 is p. W. 24. P. W. 24 baddi amasa is a resident of chennapuram and on the date of offence he is stated to be in harijan colony and witnessed the incident. He deposed that a - 10 beat d - 1 with a spear on his head. A - 19 beat d - 1 with a stout stick on his head. Some other accused were also beating d - 1. D - 1 is his father - in - law. P. W. 24 is an injured witness.

(43) The charge for the death of d - 1 is framed against a - 10, a - 11, a - 18, a - 19, a - 20, a - 23, a - 24 and a - 25. Now, coming to the medical evidence, p. W. 37 civil assistant surgeon, narasannapeta conducted autopsy over the dead body of d - 1 on 14 - 10 - 1988 and found a cut injury on the left side of the head on the frontal bone, a cut injury on the left ear, a cut injury behind left ear an incised wound on the left cheek, a contusion on the right side of the fore head, a, depression on the right side of the parietal bone, deformity and fracture of lower end of the left humerus, an incised wound on the left wrist, on its dorsal aspect, a diffused contusion of the dorsum of the right hand, deformity and fracture of left leg, above the ankle joint, a diffused contusion over the back of the chest on the left side, two oval contusions over the back of the chest in the lower part on the left side, an oval contusion on the left hip joint, an oval contusion over the upper part of the left buttock and an oval contusion on the left hip joint on the back side. Thus, in all about 15 injuries were noticed by the doctor on the person of d - 1, on external examination. On internal examination the doctor found the 3rd to 7th ribs on the left side fractured, 4th, 5th and 6th ribs on the right side fractured, all the ribs fractured on the posteria aspect of the left side. She also found fracture of the lower end of the left humerus and tibia on the left side. According to the doctor, the death would appear to have occurred about 24 to 36 hours prior to the commencement of the post - mortem examination. It is possible that external injury no. 1 can be caused with m. O. 3, external injury nos. 2 and 3 can be caused with m. O. 9 and external injury nos. 5, 6 and other contusions can be caused with sticks like m. Os. 26 and 27. The doctor is of the opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of multiple injuries, fracture of the ribs, on the left side and long bones on the left side, haemorrhage and shock and that the cumulative effect of all the external injuries is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cuase the death. She issued the post - mortem certificate ex. P - 79. The inquest report in respect of d - 1 (ex. P - 3 dt. 14 - 10 - 1988) is also proved by the evidence of p. Ws. L, 29,30 and 49. The trial court, however, found a - 10 and a - 19 guilty of the charge under section 302 ipc while a - 11, a - 18, a - 20, a - 24 and a - 25 guilty of the charge under section 302 read with section 149 ipc.

(44) It is very difficult for all the witnesses to depose to each and every bearing given by all the accused in that attack in which more than 60 persons attacked the prosecution party, especially when their feelings were hurt by the attack by a large group of persons. It is also very difficult for them to give the exact place where the injuries landed. The occular testimony of the above prosecution witnesses which is consistent with the evidence given by the doctor and other circumstances cannot lightly be thrown away simply because there is some minor discrepancy given by p. W. 37 the doctor on some immaterial point. If we take into consideration the corroborative nature of evidence coming from the various witnesses, viz. , p. Ws. L, 2,3 and 24 coupled with the medical evidence of the doctor p. W. 37 supported by the post - mortem certificate ex. P - 79, there is corroboration so far as the overt acts of a - 10, a - 11, a - 18, a - 19, a - 20 and a - 24 is concerned. But so far as the overt acts alleged against a - 23 and a - 25 is concerned, there isno consistency or corroboration comingfromother witnesses. So we feel that as there is no corroboration forthcoming with regard to the attack said to have been made by a - 23 and a - 25 is concerned, benefit of doubt can be given to them. Already the trial court had given benefit of doubt to a - 23 and acquitted him of all the charges framed against them. So, we hold that the charges against a - 25 fail and consequently he is entitled for an acquittal. However, weconfirm the convictionof a - 10 and 19 for the charge under section 302 ipc and the conviction of a - 11, a - 18, a - 20 and a - 24 for the charge under section 302 read with section 149 ipc.

(45) Regarding the death of d - 2 we are having the evidence of p. Ws. 4,5,6 and 15. The charge for the death of d - 2 is framed against a - 2, a - 4, a - 5, a - 8, a - 14, a - 21, a - 22 and a - 26. The inquest was held over the dead body of d - 2 by p. W. 49 in the presence of p. W. 29 and 30. Ex. P - 4 is the inquest report. P. Ws. 4,5,6,29 and 30 and also p. W. 49 spoke about the inquest over the dead body of d - 2. The post - mortem examination over the dead body of d - 2 was conducted by p. W. 34, civil assistant surgeon, government hospital, narasannapeta. He deposed that on the requisition given by p. W. 49 he cond ucted post - mortem examination on the dead body of d - 2 mudda appayya on 14 - 10 - 1988 and found as many as 20 external injuries, viz. , acut injury on the right side of the head in the occupital region, a cut injury on the top of the head, on the parietal region, a cut injury in between injuries 1 and 2, a cut injury on the head, on the left side in the parietal region, a cut injury on the left side of the head in the occipital region, a punched cut injury on the outer aspect of the right elbow, two oval abrasions, over the right shoulder, two oval abrasions over the back of the shoulder on the right side, two oval abrasions present on the right side of the chest, an abrasion on the left side of the chest, an abrasion on the left cheek, an abrasion on the left side of the forehead, an abrasion on the left side of the neck, a laceration to pinna of the ear, a contusion on the back of the chest, an abrasion on the right side of the back of the chest, an oval abrasion on the back of the left side of the chest, an oval abrasion over the back just above the hip, an 'l' shaped abrasion on the right side of the back, and a contusion - over the right buttock. On internal examination the doctor noticed fracture of 3rd, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 10 ribs. He deposed that all the first five external injuries may be caused with weapons like m. Os. 2 and 4 and abrasions may be caused with m. O. 12. The doctor is of the opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of multiple injuires and fracture of ribs on the right side and fracture of skull on the right side and haemorrhage of the scalp and also shock and that the cumulative effect of all the injuries are sufficient to cause the death of a human being in the ordinary course of nature. The post - mortem certificate issued by the doctor in respect of d - 2 is ex. P - 63.

(46) P. W. 4 mudda ammanna is no other than the wife of d - 2. She deposed that on the date of offence all the accused came to the mud road junction armed with spears, kamma kattulu, stout sticks and a - 1 uttered to the other accused stating that "ekkada dorkina vallani akkade kotti padeyandi". Thereupon the accused divided into three batches. About 15 to 20 accused came towards their house. At that time p. W. 4 was cleaning vessels. She called d - 2 stating that the party of a - 1 is coming. D - 2 came out from the house. A - 4, a - 2, a - 5 a - 8, a - 21, a - 14, a - 22, a - 26 and a - 11 came and all of them surrounded d - 2 and beat him and killed him. According to p. W. 4, a - 4 beat d - 2 with a spear on the back side of his neck, a - 2 beat d - 2 with a spear on back side of his neck. A - 2 beat d - 2 with a spear on his head at its centre. A - 5 beat d - 2 with a kamma katti behind and below his right ear. A - 8 beat d - 2 with a stout stick on the right side of the abdomen, below the chest. A - 8 also beat d - 2 with the same stout stick on his fore - head. A - 21 beat d - 2 on his back with a stout stick. Due to those injuries d - 2 died on the road near the electric pole. A - 26 then beat d - 2 on his chin with a stout stick. This witness was present at the time of the inquest over the dead body of d - 2 and according to her the police also examined her.

(47) P. W. 5 pitta atchayya, a resident of chennapuram deposed that on the date of offence while he was returning home on the way in harijan colony he saw the accused, numbering about 70, armed with spears, kamma kattulu, stout sticks at the three road junction near the pond. Out of fear he had hidden himself and he saw all the accused dividing into three batches after a - 1 uttered as "ekkada dorikina vallani akkade kotti champeyandi". One batch proceeded towards the house of d - 2 and the wife of d - 2 (p. W. 4) raised cries. Thereupon d - 2 came out side of the house. Then about 10 to 15 accused surrounded him and beat him. He deposed that a - 4 beat d - 2 on the back side of his head, with a spear, a - 2 beat d - 2 with a spear on the centre of his head twice. A - 5 beat d - 2 with a kamma katthi behind his right ear. A - 8 beat d - 2 with a stout stick on the right side of his abdomen, below the chest. A - 8 also beat d - 2 on the forehead with a stout stick. A - 14 poked d - 2 on his chest with a stout stick. A - 21 beat d - 2 with a stout stick on his right shoulder. A - 22 beat d - 2 with a stout stick on his back. A - 26 beat d - 2 with a stout stick on his chin. With these injuries d - 2 fell down on the mud road by the side of the electric pole and died. This witness was also present at the time of inquest over the dead body of d - 2, held by p. W. 49.

(48) P. W. 6 seemasuri atchamma deposed that her house is near the house of d - 2, that on the date of incident she came out of her house with a tumbler of water to wash her hands and she saw a - 1 and other accused, numbering about 70 or 80, armed with stout sticks, spears, kamma kattulu and katthuvalu. A - 1 uttered to the other accused stating as "ekkada dorikina vallani akkada champayandi". Thereupon all the accused divided into three batches and one batch proceeded towards the house of d - 2. When d - 2 came out from his house, he was caught hold of and thrown and beaten. She deposed that a - 4 beat d - 2 with a spear, behind his head, a_2 beat d - 2 with a spear on his head twice. A - 5 beat d - 2 with a kamma katti behind his right ear, a - 14 beat d - 2 on his chest with a stick a - 8 beat d - 2 with a stout stick below the right side of the chest of d - 2 as well as on his fore - head. A - 21 beat d - 2 with a stout stick on his right shoulder. A - 22 beat d - 2 with a stout stick on his back. A - 26 beat d - 2 on his chin with a stout stick. Some of the accused beat d - 2. Due to the above beatings d - 2 fell down on the road near the electric pole. She further deposed that she was also beaten by a - 14 with a stout stick and a - 22 beat her with a stone on her left shoulder. She was also present at the time of inquest of d - 2.

(49) P. W. 15 mudda rajodu was a resident of harijan colony. D - 2 is his elder brother. He shifted to harijan colony because a - 1 party people may beat and kill him. He deposed that on the date of offence, he was returning from the fields, around 9 to 10 a. M. And reached the harijan colony and he saw the party persons of a - 1 beating d - 2. According to him, a - 2 beat d - 2 on his head twice with a spear. A - 4 beat d - 2 with a spear behind his head. A - 5 beat d - 2 with a kamma katti above his ear. A - 8 beat d - 2 with a stout stick on the right side of his abdomen, below his chest and fore - head. A - 14 poked d - 2 with a stick on his right shoulder. A - 22 beat d - 2 on his back with a stout stick. A - 26 beat d - 2 with a stick on his chin. Out of fear that he may also be killed, he escaped from that place towards a garden.

(50) While considering the above evidence of p. Ws. 4, 5, 6 and 15 with reference to the medical evidence, we can see that there is no corresponding injury attributed to a - 26 on the chin. Therefore, a - 26 is entitled to benefit of doubt. Even otherwise, it is reported that a - 26 died even during the pendency of the sessions case. Normally inquest reports cannot be looked into for the purpose of corroboration as the object of preparation of inquest report is only to find out the cause of the death of the deceased. But at the same time it must be remembered that it is the earliest report prepared by the investigating agency in the presence of inquest panchayatdars and also some of the witnesses who were examined at the inquest, and the names of the assailants also find a place in the inquest report. In the inquest report in this case ex. P - 4 the name of a - 14 does not find a place as one of the assailants of d - 2. As this is a case which is the outcome of party factions, the non - mention of the name of a - 14 in ex. P - 4 inquest report assumes great importance the benefit of which must be given to a - 14. As regards the attack made by a - 2, a - 4, a - 8, a - 5, a - 21 and a - 22 the evidence is consistent. The prosecution is able to establish the guilt of a - 2, a - 4, a - 8 for the charge under section 302 ipc and a - 5, a - 21 and a - 22 for the common charge under sec. 302 r/w. 149 ipc. The evidence discloses that a - 2, a - 4 and a - 8 along with a - 5, a - 21 and a - 22 and some other persons have participated in the attack. So, a - 5, a - 21 and a - 22 are liable for the offence under sec. 302 r/w. 149 ipc while a - 2, a - 4 and a - 8 are liable for the direct charge u/s. 302 ipc. A - 14 and a - 26 (since died) are entitled for an acquittal.

(51) Regarding the death of d - 3 is concerned, p. Ws. 1,7 to 10 and 19 are stated to be the direct witnesses. The charge relating to the death of d - 3 is framed against a - 1, a - 3, a - 15, a - 27 and a - 63. P. W. 37 is the doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of d - 3 and issued ex. P - 80 post - mortem certificate. P. W. 37 deposed that she conducted post - mortem examination over the dead body of d - 3 and found as many as 11 externnal injuries, viz. , a cut injury on the right side of the fqre - head, a cut injury on the left parietal bone, a cut injury on the centre of the head, on the right parietal bone, a cut injury on the left side of the parietal bone, a horizontal incised wound just below the above injury, a cut injury on the occipital bone on the right side, a lacerated injury just below the right eye, a horizontal contusion on the right side of the back of the chest, a horizontal contusion on the right side of the chest, a horizontal contusion over the lower part of the back of the chest on the right side and bleeding from the mouth and the nose and clavicle fracture on the left side. On internal examination the doctor found fracture of 8th, 9th and 10th ribs. The doctor is of the opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of multiple injuries and injury to the head and fracture of the ribs on the right side, fracture of the frontal bone, parietal bone, all these leading to haemorrhage and shock. The death would appear to have occurred 24 to 36 hours prior to commencement of post - mortem examination. Ex. P - 81 is the post - mortem certificate issued by the doctor. She also opined that all the multiple injuries (external injuries) are sufficient to cause death.

(52) P. W. 1 has spoken about the attack on d - 3. According to him, when one batch proceeded towards the house of d - 3 and d - 4, he went by two steps and saw d - 3 and d - 4 being dragged out from their houses to their front yards. He deposed that a - 1 beat d - 4 on his head with a kattuva. A - 3 beat d - 3 on the back side of his head with a spear.

(53) P. W. 7 baddi atchodu is the son of d - 3. He is residing in harijan colony. According to him, on the date of offence he was grazing his sheep near the banda behind his house. At that time a - 3, a - 27, a - 63, a - 37 entered into their house and dragged d - 3 from the house. He deposed that a - 1 beat d - 3 with a kattuva on his head. A - 3 beat d - 3 with a spear on his head. A - 27 beat d - 3 with a spear on his head and d - 3 fell down. After d - 3 fell down, a - 63 beat d - 3 with a stout stick on his chest. A - 15 beat d - 3 with a kamma katti on his fore - head.

(54) P. W. 8 baddi rajulu is the son of d - 3. He also deposed that when he was in the house, a - 1 party persons came and they are a - 3, a - 27, a - 63 and a - 15 and they dragged out d - 3 from the house up to the threshold and a - 1 beat d - 3 on his head with a kathuva. A - 3 beat d - 3 with a spear on his head. A - 27 beat d - 3 on his head with a spear. D - 3 fell down. Then a - 63 beat d - 3 with a stout stick on his chest. A - 15 also beat d - 3 with a kamma katti on his fore - head.

(55) P. W. 9 baddi papamma is the wife of the younger brother of d - 3. She corroborated the evidence of p. W. 8 regarding the attack on d - 3 on all material particulars. She also deposed that a - 1 beat d - 3 on his head with a kattuva, a - 3 beat d - 3 with a spear on his head, a - 27 beat d - 3 on his head with a spear, a - 63 beat d - 3 with a stout stick, on his chest and d - 3 fell down. A - 63 also beat d - 3 on his chest after d - 3 fell down. Later a - 15 beat d - 3 with a kamma katti on his fore - head.

(56) P. W. 10 baddi yasodamma, deposed that d - 3 is her father - in - law and p. W. 7 is her husband, and p. W. 8 is p. W. 7's younger brother. While herself along with d - 3, p. W. 7 and p. W. 8 were in the house, a - 1 party people came and entered their house. A - 3, a - 27,a - 63 and some others dragged out d - 3 into the vakili and a - 1 beat d - 3 on his head with a kattuva, a - 3 beat d - 3 with a spear on his head, a - 27 beat d - 3 with a spear on his head, and d - 3 fell down. Then a - 63 beat d - 3 on his chest with a stick. A - 15 beat d - 3 with a kamma katti on his fore - head.

(57) P. W. 19 baddu gangulu also corroborated the evidence of p. Ws. 7to 10 to some extent. According to him, on the date of offence when he was in his house, a - 1's party came mere and the wife of d - 4 (p. W. 11) and p. W. 10 raised cries and then he came out from his house and saw a - 1 beating d - 4 on his head with a katthuva and a - 1 also beating d - 3 with a kathuva on his head. When he went there and asked himnot to beat, a - 8 beathim on his hand with a stout stick and a - 36 beat him with a stone on his right fore arm and a - 40 beat him with a stick on his right elbow and on his left upper arm.

(58) Ex. P - 5 is the inquest report relating to the inquest held by p. W. 49 over the dead body of d - 3. A careful scrutiny of this document ex. P - 5 it has come to light that the name of a - 63 has not been mentioned in it. The presence of a - 63 has not been spoken to during inquest. The same reasoning given to eliminate a - 14 will also hold good in the case of a - 63 also. So, a - 63 is also entitled for an acquittal. However, the prosecution has provectbeyond reasonable doubt the attack on d - 3 by a - 1,a - 3,a - 15 and a - 27, as the evidence of p. Ws. L, 7 to 10 and also 19 coupled with the medical evidenceof p. W. 37 supported by ex. P. 81 postmortem certificate is consistent and corroborative and the evidence of these witnesses clearly brings home the guilt of these accused viz. , a - 1, a - 3, a - 15 and a - 27 who are responsible for the death of d - 3 and consequently their conviction under section 302 i. P. C stands confirmed.

(59) Charge no. 5 relates to the death of d - 4. P. Ws. 1, 7 to 13, p. W. 15,p. W. 18, p. W. 19 and r. W. 21 are the persons who spoke about the attack on d - 4. The charge under section 302 i. P. C relating to the murder of d - 4 is framed against a - 1, a - 6, a - 7 a - 9, a - 12, a - 13, a - 16, a - 17 and a - 28 to a - 32. Out of these accused, a - 28 to a - 32 are women accused. It has already been held in the preceding paragraphs of this judgment that their participation in the incident is doubtful. The lower court has also given benefit of doubt to these accused a - 28 to a - 32 so far as charge no. 5 relating to the death of d - 4 is concerned and acquitted them, only in respect of the charge under section 302 i. P. C for the death of d - 4. The trial court found a - 9, a - 16 and a - 17 guilty of the charge under section 302 relating to the murder of d - 4. Now we are concerned with the convictions of these three accused, viz. , a - 9, a - 16 and a - 17 so far as the death of d - 4 is concerned.

(60) P. W. 34 the civil assistant surgeon,government hospital,narasannapeta conducted post - mortem examination over the dead body of d - 4 on 15 - 10 - 1988 on the dead body of d - 4 on the requisition from p. W. 49. She found 12 external injuries on the body of d - 4, viz. , a cut injury over the head of its frontal region on the right side, a cut injury over the parietal region on right side of the head, another 'y' shaped injury just behind the second injury, a laceration just behind the right ear, a laceration over the occipital region on the right side, a laceration on the upper arm on the left side of its extensor aspect, a laceration to the dorsal aspect of left middle finger, an oval abrasion to the dorsum of the right hand, an oval abrasion on the right side and back, just above the buttocks, diffused contusion over the left shoulder and also over the left side of the chest, diffused contusion to the back and left side of chest and a fracture of the leg, just below the knee on the left side. The doctor also found on internal examination fracture of the 3rd,4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th ribs on the right side. He is of the opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of multiple injuries, fracture of ribs, fracture of left tibia, haemorrhage and shock. Death would appear to have occurred about 36 to 48 hours before the commencement of the post - mortem examination. Ex. P - 65 is the post - mortem certificate issued by the doctor relating to d - 4. According to the doctor, the cumulative effect of all the injuries are sufficient to cause death of a human being in the ordinary course of nature.

(61) The inquest report in respect of d - 4 is ex. P - 6 and it is proved by the panchayatdars p. Ws. 29,30 and the investigating officer p. W. 49 and by p. Ws. 11, 12 and 113 who were examined at the time of inquest by the investigating officer.

(62) As already stated above, p. Ws. 1, 7 to 13,15,18,19 and 21 spoke about the attack on d - 4. Pw. 1 deposed regarding the attack on d - 4 that when one batch proceeded towards the houses of d - 3 and d - 4, he also went by two steps and saw d - 3 and d - 4 being dragged out from their houses to their front yards and a - 1 beating d - 4 on his head with a kathuva and a - 3 beating d - 3 on the back side of his head with a spear.

(63) P. W. 7 is the son of the deceased. According to him, a - 17 beat d - 4 with a kathuva on the back side of his head and d - 4 also fell down. A - 1 beat d - 4 with a kattuva on his head twice. Thereupon, a - 4 died.

(64) As already stated p. W. 8 baddi rajulu is the son of d - 3, according to this witness, by the side of his house, there is the house of d - 4. D - 4 was dragged out from his house by a - 1 and some other accused and a - 1 beat d - 4 on his head with a kattuva and a - 17 beat d - 4 on his head, back side with a kattuva and some other accused also beat d - 4. D - 4 fell down. Some time later, again, a - 1 and others came and a - 1 beat both d - 3 and d - 4 and due to the injuries d - 3 and d - 4 died.

(65) P. W. 9 is the wife of the younger brother of d - 3. Pw. 10 baddi yasodamma is the wifeof p. W. 7. Pw. 9 and 10 corroborated the evidence of p. Ws. 7 and 8 and stated that a - 1 beat d - 4 with a kattuva on the back sideof his head and a - 17 beat d - 4 with a kattuva on the back side of his head.

(66) P. W. Ll is the wife of d - 4. She deposed that on the date of offence she was residing in harijan colony of chennapuram. According to his witness, on the date of of fence when hersel f, d - 4, their son p. W. 12, p. W. 21, p. W. 28 were in their house, a - 1 and other accused came and a - 1, a - 16, a - 17, a - 9, a - 12 and a - 13 and some other accused dragged out d - 4 from their house. After d - 4 was dragged out, a - 1 beat him with a ka thuva on his head. A - 9 beat d - 4 on his right shoulder with a stou t stick. A - 17bea t d - 4 with a kathuva on his back side head. A - 12 beat d - 4 with a kathuva on the dorsal side of the right palm and wrist with its iron part. A - 13 beat d - 4 with stick on his right ear. A - 16 beat d - 4 on the right side of his head with stick portion of the spear. A - 7 beat d - 4 with a kamma katti on his fore - head. A - 6 beat d - 4 with a kamma katti on his fore - head. A - 6 beat d - 4 with a kamma katti on the left upper arm just above the elbow or on the elbow. A - 28 to a - 32 beat d - 4 with stones and due to the injuries d - 4 fell down.

(67) P. W. 12 baddi apparao is the son of d - 4. Regarding the attack on d - 4, this witness stated that a - 1,a - 17, a - 12, a - 9, a - 13 and a - 16 came inside their house and they caught hold of the hair and hands of d - 4 and dragged him from the house. A - 1 beat d - 4 with a kathuva on his head. A - 17 beat d - 4 with a kathuva behind his head. A - 12 beat d - 4 on the dorsal side of the right palm with a kathuva. A - 16 beat d - 4 on the right side of his head with the stick portion of spear. A - 9 beat d - 4 with a stout stick on his right shoulder. A - 13 beat d - 4 on his right ear with a stout stick. A - 28 to a - 34 beat d - 4 with stones. A - 7 beat d - 4 with a kamma karri on the fore - head. A - 6 beat d - 4 with a kamma katti on his left elbow.

(68) P. W. 13 baddi gangulu deposed that on the date of offence he was residing in harijan colony and that he shifted to that colony because of fear that a - 1 party may beat him. Regarding the attack on d - 4, this witness has stated that on the date of offence he went to the house of one karuvu which is in front of the houses of d - 3 and d - 4. While he was outside the house of that karuvu he saw a - 1 and his party entering into the house of d - 3 and d - 4. A - 1, a - 17, a - 19 and a - 16 entered into the house of d - 4 and dragged out d - 4 and a - 1 beat d - 4 on his head with a kathuva. A - 17 beat d - 4 behind his head with a kathuva. A - 7 beat d - 4 on his fore - head, with a kamma katthi. A - 6 beat d - 4 on his left elbow with a kamma katthi. Some others also beat d - 4. While d - 4 was being so beaten he went there and he was also beaten by a - 8. , a - 40 and a - 48. He was also present and was examined by the police at the time of inquest of d - 4.

(69) P. W. 15 mudda rajodu is the younger brother of d - 2. Regarding the attack of d - 4 he deposed that he saw a - 1 beating d - 4 on his head with a kathuva, a - 17 beat d - 4 with a ka thuva onthe back side of his head, a - 7 beat d - 4 on his fore - head with a kamma katti and a - 9 beat d - 4 with a stout stick on his right shoulder. When he asked them not to beat d - 4, a - 33, 12 and 28 beat him (p. W. 15).

(70) P. Ws. 16 baddi rama murty, elder brother of d - 4, p. W. 17 and p. W. 18, also corroborated the evidence of p. Ws. 11 to 13 and 15 regarding the attack on d - 4 is concerned on all material particulars. All these witnesses were subjected to much cross - examination but nothing is elicited from them to discredit their evidence.

(71) On a careful scrutiny of the evidence of these witnesses, corroboration is forthcoming with regard to the attack on d - 4 only against a - 1, a - 9, a - 16 and a - 17. The evidence of the above witnesses clearly establishes the guilt of these four accused, viz. , a - 1, a - 9, a - 16 and a - 17 for causing the death of d - 4. After careful analysis of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the learned addl. Sessions judge also found a - 1, a - 9, a - 16 and a - 17 guilty of the offence under section 302 i. P. C for causing the death of d - 4 and we see no reason to disturb the said finding, which is based on cogent and convincing reasons.

(72) It is contended by sri e. Ella reddy, learned counsel appearing for the accused that the rough sketch of the scene of offence, ex. P - 128 shows that there are four roads in the harijana colony and the lying of the dead body shows only at three different places they are there, and there is any amount of improvement in the case of the prosecution from stage to stage. When the accused party armed with deadly weapons came and attacked the prosecution party who are staying in the harijan colony, they spread into three directions. At the time when they were examined by the police they might not have stated about the persons dividing into three groups which may not be of an important aspect to be brought to the notice of the police. But the finding of the dead - bodies and the location of the houses in which the prosection party persons were residing and in view of the consistent evidence of the prosecution witnesses, all points out to the fact that the accused party divided themselves into batches and attacked the respective deceased and injured witnesses and caused them injuries. By that circumstance alone it cannot be said that there is any improvement in the case of the prosecution, which is of any material one. It is not the case even from the time of the inquest that the incident took place at one place and dead bodies were shifted to another place are all the accused together attacked the deceased one after another. In the circumstances of this case it cannot be said that there is any material improvement nor embellishment in the case of the prosecution which would throw away their case. All the prosecution witnesses, who are direct witnesses to the incident, have stated that a - 1 exhorted and uttered to the other accused stating as "ekkada dorikina vallani akkada champeyandi", which means a - 1 has exhorted to the other accused to beat and kill the persons whoever found or wherever found. It may be remembered the witnesses hail from village and they are illiterates and village rustics. There may be some difference in the words uttered by a - 1 regarding this exhortation but the general meaningof this exhortation is spoken to consistently by all the witnesses. More over, they are giving evidence in court after a lapse of more than two years. The non - mentioning of not repea ting in a parrot - like manner the words uttered by a - 1 indicates the truthful nature of their version and that they arenot tutored. It is also to be noted that the witnesses have not improved their version regarding the nature of the weapons particularly with regard to kamma katti. It is to be noted that more than 60 persons have participated in the occurrence and it cannot be said that the injured are in a static position but however the witnesses have deposed who beat with what weapon consistently. In these circumstances, the nature of the injury that can be caused by a kamma katti will be in one form or by kattuva will be in another form as stated by modi cannot be accepted in the particular circumstances of this case. The injured persons were wearing their apparel like dhoties, banians, shirts etc. , and they will protect them to some extent not to cause external injury. The fracture of ribs is a point to be noted that indiscriminating beating was there and the intention of the accused party is only to cause the death of the persons of the prosecution party whoever comes on the way.

(73) As already stated above, a - 1's presence has been spoken to by all the witnesses consistently and also about his exhortation and attack on d - 3 and d - 4. The injuries sustained by a - 1, as evidenced by ex. D - 31 certificate issued by p. W. 34 is a positive proof of his presence and participation in the occurrence. There is no dispute that a - 1 is the leader of accused party and d - 4 is the leader of the prosecution party. It is a - 1 that is mainly responsible for the attack. Itis not a sudden fight. It is a pre - planned one. The accused party came to the harijan colony having armed with deadly weapons itself is an indication of their pre - plan of doing away of the persons of the prosecution party. All of them formed themselves into one group with that common object or intention and attacked the minority party of the prosecution.

(74) The other contention advanced by sri ella reddy is that even as per the prosecution case each deceased or injured persons were attacked by less than five members and consequently there would not be any unlawful assembly or common intention attracting sections 148 or 149 i. P. C. , and consequently the accused are entitled to benefit of doubt. We do not agree with this contention. It is the consistent evidence of the prosecution witnesses mat all the accused party came together armed with deadly weapons and at the exhortation of a - 1 they divided into three groups and attacked the deceased and injured p. Ws. Simultaneously dragging them out from their respective houses and caused injuries. Having armed with deadly weapons and entered into harijan colony itself is an unlawful assembly and their common intention also is to kill or cause injuries to the prosecution party persons. In the course of one and the same transaction all the accused attacked the deceased and injured p. Ws and so they are all constructively liable for the offence under section 149. However, some of the accused whose presence is held to be doubtful cannot be convicted either under section 148 or for the constructive liability under section 149. As already stated , the receipt of simple injuries by only five of the accused party shows that the prosecution party was unarmed at the time of the attack. In this connection a reference to the decision of the supreme court reported in gurucharan singh and others vs. The state of harynna may be useful. The supreme court, inter alia, observed that where it was clear from the evidence that there could be only one common object of the unlawful assembly normally, that the accused had attacked the deceased with the object of doing away with him because he had become rival in the trade and because annoying them, then, no exception could be taken to the conviction of each of the accused of an offence of murder under section 302 i. P. C read with section 149 thereof. The argument that the accused who are found guilty of a particular offence have to be convicted only for their individual acts also cannot be accepted particularly in the facts and circumstances of this case where it was already held that the accused entered into harijan colony armed with deadly weapons having formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with the common intention of killing the prosecution party members.

(75) Now we consider charge nos. 8 and 9 which relate to the attack made by various accused on p. Ws,6,13,14,15,16,17,18,19, 20,21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28. Charge no. 8 is framed against a - 8, a - 35, a - 20 and a - 27 under sec. 326 i. P. C for causing grievous injuries to p. W. 19, p. W. 18 and p. W. 22. A - 8 is alleged to have caused grievous injury to p. W. 19 with a stick on his right hand. A - 35 is alleged to have caused a grievous injury on the right hand elbow of p. W. 22. A - 20 is alleged to have caused a grievous injury on the left hand of p. W. 18 with a kamma katti and a - 27 is alleged to have caused a grievous injury on the left palm of p. W. 18 with the stick portion of spear. The learned trial judge after appreciating the evidence convicted only a - 20 and a - 27 for the charge under section 326 ipc and so we are concerned with these two accused alone. P. W. 18 patta papayya, who was residing in the harijan colony on the date of offence, deposed that on the date of of fence he was going for his professional cooly work and at that time all the accused were coming to the colony. After referring to the beatings on d - 3 and d - 4, this witness deposed that a - 20 beat him with a kamma katti on his left elbow and a - 27 beat him with a spear at the root of his left thumb. P. W. 37 the doctor examined p. W. 18 and found a laceration injury on the left side of the chin, a lacerated injury on the left hand, a lacerated injury on the left elbow joint, swelling of the left side of the chest wall, a lacerated injury on the left side of fore - head, above the left eye brow, an abrasion on the left leg, and an abrasion on the left ankle joint. According to the doctor the x - ray of left forearm and palm lateral view disclosed fracture of the lower end of left radius and ulna and fracture of the base of the first metacarpal bone of the left thumb. The doctor is of the opinion that the 2nd and 3rd injuries are grievous in nature and other injuries are simple nature. Ex. P - 84 is the wound certificate issued by the doctor relating to p. W. 18. The grievous injuries, viz. , injuries 2 and 3 are attributed to a - 27 and a - 20 respectively. Ex. P - 98 is two x - ray photos relating to the 3rd injury on p. W. 18 showing fracture of the elbow and this is also proved by p. W. 43 radiologist. Likewise, ex. P - 99 is the two x - ray photos of injury no. 2 of p. W. 18 and ex. P - 100 is the envelope containing the opinion of the radiologist p. W. 43. Taking into account the convincing evidence p. W. 18, coupled with the medical evidence of p. W. 34 and p. W. 43 and ex. P - 84 wound certificate and exs. P - 98, p - 99 and p - 100, we are of the firm view that the prosecution established the guilt of a - 20 and a - 27 for causing grievous injuries to p. W. 18. Consequently we hold that the lower court is perfectly right in convicting a - 20 and a - 27 for the offence under section 326 ipc.

(76) Charge no. 9 is framed against a - 1 to a - 6, a - 8, a - 11 to a - 14, a - 16 to a - 20, a - 22, a - 27 to a - 29, a - 32 to a - 42, a - 44 to a - 56, a - 58 to a - 61 and a - 64 for causing simple injuries to p. Ws. 6 and 13 to 28, punishable under section 324 ipc. The lower court, after considering the evidence of the various injured witnesses, coupled with the medical evidence, ultimately convicted a - 2, a - 3, a - 5, a - 8, a - 11, a - 16 to a - 19, a - 22, a - 27 to a - 29, a - 33, a - 34, a - 36, a - 37, a - 40, a - 41, a - 44 to a - 48, a - 53, a - 59, a - 60, a - 61 and a - 64 for the offence under section 324 ipc for voluntarily causing hurt to various injured witnesses. Now we shall consider how far the learned additional sessions judge is justified in convicting these accused for the offence under section 324 ipc.

(77) Injuries of p. W. 6: - a - 22 is alleged to have beaten p. W. 6 with a stone. P. W. 6 also gave evidence to the effect that a - 22 beat him with a stone on his left shoulder. P. W. 34 the doctor examined p. W. 6 and found a diffused contusion on the dorsum of hand on the left side and an oval abrasion on the left shoulder and both the injuries are certified to be simple in nature and may be caused by a blunt weapon. Ex. P - 67 is the wound certificate issued by p. W. 34 relating to p. W. 6. The existence of the injury is proved by the medical evidence and it is also proved by the convincing evidence of p. W. 6 that a - 22 is responsible for this injury. We, therefore, hold that a - 22 is liable for conviction under section 324 ipc and the trial court is perfectly right in convicting a - 22 accordingly.

(78) Injuries of p. W. 13: - the charge relating to the injuries on p. W. 13 stands against a - 8 alone as the lower court has acquitted a - 36, a - 37, a - 40 and a - 48. It is the case of the prosecution that a - 8 inflicted an injury on the left fore - arm of p. W. 13. P. W. 13 also spoke in evidence about a - 8 beating him with a stick on his left fore - arm. P. W. 34 the civil assistant surgeon examined p. W. 13 and found a contusion on the left jaw and a diffused contusion on the upper end of left fore - arm. The doctor is of the opinion that the injuries are simple in nature and ex. P - 69 is the wound certificate issued by him relating to p. W. 13. The second injury noted by the doctor is attributed to a - 8. In view of the convincing evidence of p. W. 13 coupled with the medical evidence, we are satisfied that a - 8 has caused this injury and he is liable to be convicted under section 324 ipc for having caused this injury to p. W. 13.

(79) Injuries of p. W. 14: - the charge relating to the injuries on the person of p. W. 14 stands against a - 28 and a - 29. It is the case of the prosecution that a - 28 and a - 29 caused the injuries to p. W. 14 with stones on his head and forearm. P. W. 34 examined p. W. 14 and found an abrasion on the frontal aspect of the head on the right side and a small abrasion on the lower part of the left forearm and these two injuries are opined to be simple in nature and may be caused by a blunt weapon. Ex. P - 68 is the wound certificate issued by p. W. 34 in respect of the injuries found on p. W. 14. Thus, it is true that the existence of the two injuries on the person of p. W. 14 is proved by the medical evidence of p. W. 34. But we have already disbelieved, in the previous paragraphs of this judgment, the participation of women accused in the occurrence, more so armed with stones. Consequently a - 28 and a - 29 are entitled to an acquittal of the charge under section 324 ipc.

(80) Injuries of p. W. 16: - the charge relating to the injuries of p. W. 16 stands against a - 19, a - 29, a - 34 and a - 36 only. P. W. 37 civil assistant surgeon examined this witness p. W. 16 and found a lacerated injury on the left side of the fore - head, a lacerated injury on the left side of the frontal bone, a lacerated injury on the frontal bone in mid line, a lacerated injury on the left parietal bone, swelling of the left hand and complained of chest pain. The doctor opined that all the injuries are simple in nature and could have been caused with a partly blunt object. Ex. P - 91 is the wound certificate issued by the doctor relating to the injuries found on p. W. 16.

(81) The trial court convicted a - 19, a - 29, a - 34, and a - 36 holding that these are responsible for causing the simple injuries to p. W. 16. Out of these accused, a - 29 is a woman accused and we have already given benefit of doubt to all the women accused disbelieving their participation in the occurrence arming with stones. So a - 29 is entitled to benefit of doubt.

(82) As regards the other accused, viz. , a - 19, a - 34 and a - 36, p. W. 16 deposed in his evidence that a - 19 beat him with a stout stick on his chest, that he was beaten by a - 34 with a stick on his head right side and a - 36 beat him with a kamma katti on the left side of his head. The doctor found that corresponding injuries on p. W. 16. Therefore, after taking into account the evidence of p. W. 16 duly supported by the medical evidence of p. W. 37 coupled with ex. P - 91 wound certificate, we hold that the prosecution has established the charge against a - 19, a - 34 and a - 36 for the offence under section 324 ipc and the lower court has rightly convicted them.

(83) Injuries of p. W. 1 7: - the charge relating to the injuries found on p. W. 17 stands against a - 37 only. P. W. 17 claims that a - 37 beat him with a stick on his chest. P. W. 37 examined this witness and among other injuries she also found one selling of the left side of the chest wall which is attributed to a - 37. Ex. P - 82 is the wound certificate relating to the injuries found on p. W. 17, issued by p. W. 37. Taking into account the convincing evidence of p. W. 17 coupled with the medical evidence of p. W. 37 supported by ex. P - 82 wound certificate we are in entire agreement with the trial court in convicting a - 37 for the offence under section 324 ipc for causing injury to p. W. 17.

(84) Injuries of p. W. 18: - charge relating to the injuries found on p. W. 18 stands against a - 16 only. P. W. 18 deposed that a - 16 poked him with a spear on the left side of his lower lip. P. W. 37 examined p. W. 18 and found among other injuries a lacerated injury on the left side of the chin of p. W. 18 which is attributed to a - 16. Ex. P - 84 is the wound certificate relating to the injuries on p. W. 18. In view of the convicing evidence of p. W. 18 duly supported by medical evidence, we are satisfied that a - 16 caused this injury and the trial court is perfectly right in convicting a - 16 for the offence under section 324 ipc which does not call for interference.

(85) Injuries of p. W. 19: - the charge under section 324 ipc stands against a - 36 and against a - 40 under two counts for causing injuries to p. W. 19. P. W. 19 deposed that a - 36 beathim with a stone on his right fore - arm and a - 40 beat him with a stick on his right elbow and on his left upper arm. P. W. 37 examined this witness and found a lacerated injury on the right parietal bone, a lacerated injury on the right side of the mandible and an abrasion on the left side of the fore - head. Ex. P - 85 is the wound certificate. Thus, there is the convincing evidence of p. W. 19 regarding the injuries on his right fore - arm, left fore - arm and right elbow. The first injury is attributed to a - 36 while injury nos. 4 and 5 are attributed to a - 40. Considering the medical evidence and the evidence of p. W. 19, we hold that the learned addl. Sessions judge is perfectly justified in convicting a - 36 and also a - 40 (under two counts) for the offence under sec. 324 ipc which does not call for interference.

(86) Injuries of p. W. 20: - the charge stands against a - 3 and a - 41 for causing injuries on p. W. 20. P. W. 20 deposed that a - 3 beat him with a spear on his head and a - 41 beat him on his left upper arm with a thenta, made up of a wooden handle, fixed to metal portion. P. W. 37 examined this witness and found a lacerated injury on the left upper arm in the mid - line, a lacerated injury on the left side of the occipital bone, an abrasion on the left buttock, swelling on the entire left upper arm and complaining of chest pain. Ex. P - 87 is the wound certificate issued by the doctor in respect of the injuries found on p. W. 20. Injury no. 1 as spoken to by the doctor is attributed to a - 41 while injury no. 2 is attributed to a - 3. The testimony of p. W. 20 coupled with the medical evidence of p. W. 37 and the wound certificate ex. P - 87, clearly establish the guilt of a - 3 and a - 41 beyond reasonable doubt and the lower court is perfectly right in convicting them for the offence under section 324 ipc.

(87) Injuries of p. W. 21: - the charge as regards the injuries found on the person of p. W. 21 stands against a - 5, a - 44, a - 45, a - 59, a - 60 and a - 61. P. W. 20 deposed that he was beaten by a - 5 with a kamina katti on his right upper arm, a - 44 beat him on his chest with a stick, a - 45 beat him with a stick on his left shoulder and a - 59, a - 60 and a - 61 beathim with stones on his left side jaw, chin and right knee. P. W. 37 examined p. W. 21 and found an abrasion on the right cheek, an abrasion on the right side of the chin, an abrasion on the left middle finger, an abrasion on the middle aspect of the left knee, swelling of the right upper arm, complaining of chest pain and swelling of the left shoulder joint. Ex. P - 88 is the wound eertifica te issued by p. W. 37 in respect of the injuries fo und on p. W. 21. We have already disbelieved the participation of women accused in the occurrence armed with stones. Here, a - 59, a - 60 and a - 61 who are women accused are stated to have beat the witness p. W. 21 with sfones. So we give benefit of doubt to these three women accused, viz. , a - 59, a - 60 and a - 61 and held them not guilty of the charge under section 324 ipc. However, the evidence of p. W. 21 coupled with the medical evidence of p. W. 37 supported by ex. P - 88 wound certificate amply establishes the guilt of a - 5, a - 44 and a - 45 for the offence under section 324 ipc for voluntarily causing hurt to p. W. 21.

(88) Injuries of p. W. 22: - the charge in so far as it relates to the injuries on p. W. 22 stands against a - 40 only as the lower court has acquitted the other accused, viz. , a - 46. P. W. 22 deposed that a - 40 beat him with a stick on his left upper arm. P. W. 37 the docotor examined this witness and among other injuries the doctor found selling of the left upper arm which is attributed to a - 40. Ex. P - 90 is the wound certificate relating to p. W. 22. Considering the convincing evidence of p. W. 22 and the medical evidence of p. W. 37 coupled with ex. P - 90 wound certificate, we hold that a - 40 is guilty of the offence under section 324 ipc and the lower court is perfectly right in convicting him for the said offence.

(89) Injuries of p. W. 23: - the charge stands against a - 2, a - 16 and a - 53 for the injuries said to have been caused to p. W. 23. P. W. 23 deposed that a - 16 poked him with a spear on his right foot, a - 2 beat him with a spear on his right shoulder and a - 53 beat him on his chest with stones. P. W. 37 examined this witness and found drooping of the right shoulder joint, swelling of the right foot and complaining of pain of the chest. Ex. P - 86 is the wound certificate relating to this witness issued by the doctor p. W. 37. The first injury as spoken to by the doctor and mentioned in ex. P - 86 is attributed to a - 2 and the 2nd injury is attributed to a - 16. After considering the evidence of p. W. 23 with the medical evidence, we are satisfied that a - 2 and a - 16 are guilty of the charge u/s. 324 ipc for causing injuries to p. W. 23 and the lower court is right to that extent. But so far as a - 53 is concerned, we have already disbelieved the participation of women accused armed with stones. That benefit will also accrue to a - 53 also and consequently she is entitled for an acquittal.

(90) Injuries, of p. W. 24: - as regards the injuries found on the person of p. W. 24, the trial court convicted a - 11 and consequently the charge against a - 11 alone has to be considered here. P. W. 24 deposed regarding the injury attributed to a - 11 that a - 11 beat him with a kamma katti on his head. The doctor p. W. 37 examined this witness and she found, among other injuries, a lacerated injury on the right parietal bone, which is attributed to a - 11. Ex. P - 85 is the wound certificate showing that injury. Thus the evidence of p. W. 24 is amply corroborated by the medical evidence so far as the injury attributed to a - 11. Therefore, we hold that the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of a - 11 for the offence under section 324 ipc for causing injury to p. W. 24 and the lower court is perfectly right in convicting him accordingly.

(91) Injuries of p. W. 25: - the charge so far as the injuries found on the person of p. W. 25 is concerned, stands against a - 36, a - 47, a - 48. P. W. 25 deposed that a - 47 beat him with a spear on his head, a - 36 beat him with a kamma katti on his head and a - 48 beat him on his chest with a stick. P. W. 37 examined this witness and found a lacerated injury on the left parietal bone, attributed to a - 36, a lacerated injury on the right temporal bone, attributed to a - 47 and complaining of chest pain attributed to a - 48. Ex. P - 83 is the wound certificate issued by the doctor. The medical evidence of the doctor coupled with the certificate ex. P - 83 duly proved the existence of those injuries on the person of p. W. 25 and the evidence of p. W. 25 establishes that a - 36, a - 47 and a - 48 caused those injuries. Therefore, we hold a - 36, a - 47 and a - 48 guilty of the charge under section 324. Ipc for causing injuries to p. W. 25 and the lower court is perfectly right in convicting them for the said offence.

(92) Injuries of p. W. 26: - this charge relating to the injuries of p. W. 26 stands against a - 18 only. P. W. 26 deposed in his evidence, among other things, that a - 18 beat him with a kamma kathi on his head. P. W. 34 examined this witness and found an oval abrasion on the head of p. W. 26, which is attributed to a - 18 and issued the wound certificate ex. P - 70. Considering the convincing evidence of p. W. 26 coupled with the medical evidence, we hold that the trial court is perfectly right in convicting a - 18 of the charge under section 324 for causing injuries to p. W. 26 which does not call for interference.

(93) Injuries of p. W. 27: - the charge in so far as it relates to the injuries found on the person of p. W. 27, stands against a - 17, a - 33, a - 44, and a - 64. Coming, to the evidence of p. W. 27 given in court, he deposed that a - 33 poked him on his head with a spear twice, a - 17 beat him with a kattuva on his left tipper arm, a - 64 beat him with a kamma katti on the back side of his head and a - 44 poked him with a stout stick on his chest. P. W. 37 examined this witness and found a lacerated injury on the left parietal bone, an abrasion on the left upper arm, a tiny abrasion behind the second injury, a contusion on the left scapula, an abrasion on the le/t arm and complaining of chest pain. Ex. P - 92 is the wound certificate issued by the doctor certifying the above injuries. The first injury is attributed to a - 33, the second injury is attributed to a - 17, injury no. 4 is attributed to a - 64 and injury no. 6 is attributed to a - 44. On a careful scrutiny of the evidence of p. W. 27 we are satisfied that a - 17, a - 33, a - 44 and a - 64 are liable for the respective injuries caused by them and the evidence of p. W. 37 coupled with ex. P - 9 wound ceritficate also proved the existence of those injuries. We, therefore, hold that the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt the charge against these accused, viz. , a - 17, a - 33, a - 44 and a - 64 for the offence under section 324 ipc for causing injuries to p. W. 27.

(94) Injuries of p. W. 28: - the charge so far as the injuries of p. W. 28 are concerned stands against a - 3, a - 27 and a - 46. P. W. 28 deposed that he was beaten by a - 3 when he tried to interfere with the beatings of d - 4 with a spear on his head twice, on the right side, a - 27 poked him with a spear on his head on the left side and a - 46 beat him with a stout stick on his right shoulder. P. W. 37 examined this witness and found a lacerated injury on the right side of the frontal bone, above the forehead, a lacertated injury on the left side of the frontal bone above the forehead, selling of the scapula on the left side. Injury no. 1 is attributed to a - 3, the 2nd injury is attributed to a - 27 and injury no. 3 is attributed to a - 46. The evidence of the doctor p. W. 37 coupled with ex. P - 93 certificate proves the existence of these injuries on the person of p. W. 28 and the evidence of p. W. 28 proves that a - 3, a - 27 and a - 46 are responsible for the same. On a careful consideration of the evidence of p. W. 28, we are satisfied that the above accused a - 3, a - 27 and a - 46 are guilty of the charge under section 324 ipc for causing hurt to p. W. 28 and the lower court is perfectly right in convicting them for the said charge which does not call for interference.

(95) To sum up, under charge no. 9, we find that a - 2, a - 3, a - 5, a - 8, a - 11, a - 16, a - 17, a - 18, a - 19, a - 22, a - 27, a - 33, a - 34, a - 36, a - 37, a - 40, a - 41, a - 44, a - 45, a - 46, a - 47, a - 48 and a - 64 are guil ty of the offence under section 324 ipc and consequently their convictions and sentences, as imposed by the trial court are to be confirmed. However, we hold that a - 28, a - 29, a - 53, a - 59, a - 60 and a - 61 are not guilty of the offence under section 324 ipc and consequently their convictions and sentences, as imposed by the trial court, are liable to be set aside.

(96) The next charge which needs consideration is the one under section 449 ipc. This charge is framed against a - 1 to a - 32 and a - 63 stating that they have committed house trespass by entering into the houses of d - 1 to d - 4, which are used as human dwelling, in order to commit an offence punishable with death, viz. , to cause the death of d - 1 to d - 4. On an appreciation of the entire material on record, both oral and documentary evidence and other circumstances, the learned trial judge found a - 1, a - 3, a - 9, a - 16, a - 17, a - 27 and a - 63 guilty of the said charge under sec. 449 ipc, but, however, he found a - 2, a - 4 to a - 8, a - 10 to a - 15, a - 18 to a - 26 and a - 28 to a - 32 not guilty of the said charge under section 449 ipc and accordingly acquitted them of the said charge. On an independent appreciation of the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses, coupled with the documentary evidence, we are satisfied that the learned addl. Sessions judge is perfectly right in convicting a - 1, a - 3, a - 9, a - 16, a - 17 and a - 27 alone but so far as a - 63 is concerned, we have already disbelieved the participation of a - 63 and given him benefit of doubt. Consequently he is entitled to be acquitted of this charge also. The acquittal of a - 2, a - 4 to a - 8, a - 10 to a - 15, a - 18 to a - 26 and a - 28 to a - 32 is also correct as there is no material forthcoming against these accused for the offence under section 449 ipc. The evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution clearly establishes that a - 3 and a - 27 entered into the house of d - 3, dragged him out from his house to outside and d - 3 was attacked and murdered. The evidence of p. Ws. 9,10 and 13 is consistent and corroborative on this aspect. Similarly the evidence of p. Ws. 7,10,11,12,13,17 and 21 establishes beyond all reasonable doubt that a - 1, a - 9, a - 16 and a - 17 dragged out d - 4 from his house and was attacked and murdered. We, therefore, hold that a - 1, a - 3, a - 9, a - 16, a - 17 and a - 27 are guilty of the charge under section 449 of the indian penal code and the trial court is perfectly justified in convicting those accused for the said offence and we are in entire agreement with him.

(97) As regards the charge under section 148 ipc, which is charge no. 1, though it is framed against a - 1 to a - 64, the trial court found a - 1 to a - 6, a - 8 to a - 22, a - 24 to a - 29, a - 33 to a - 37, a - 40, a - 41, a - 44 to a - 48, a - 53, a - 59 to a - 61, a - 63 and a - 64 guilty of the said charge under section 148 ipc and convicted them. However, we have disbelieved the participation of a - 14, a - 25, a - 26 (since died) , a - 28, a - 29, a - 53, a - 59, a - 60, a - 61 and a - 63 and consequently they are entitled for an acquittal under this charge also. Therefore, undoubtedly the remaining accused, viz. , a - 1 to a - 6, a - 8 to a - 13, a - 15 to a - 22, a - 24, a - 27, a - 33 to a - 37, a - 40, a - 41 and a - 44 to a - 48, who are more than five in number are proved by cogent evidence of the prosecution witnesses to have formed themselves into an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons like kamrna katthulu, spears, kattuvas, sticks with the common object of killing d - 1 to d - 4. Consequently they are all liable for conviction under sec don 148 ipc. The judgment of the learned additional sessions judge so far as the above accused are concerned for the offence under section 148 ipc needs no interference, however with regard to a - 14, a - 25, a - 26, a - 28, a - 29, a - 53, a - 59, a - 60, a - 61 and a - 63 as we have already found that their participation is doubtful and have given benefit of doubt to them, the conviction and sentence of these accused for the offence under section 148 ipc have to be set aside.

(98) Now, coming to the charge under section 302 read with section 109 ipc it is framed against a - 1 and the lower court found him guilty of the said charge. Admittedly, a - 1 is the leader of the accused party. It is the consistent evidence of all the direct prosecution witnesses that a - 1 abetted and instiga ted the other accused to attack the deceased and other members of the prosecution party and kill them, by"ekkada dorikana vallani akkada kotti padeyandi". In pursuance of the said instigation, d - 1 to d - 4 were murdered and p. Ws. 8,13,14 and 16 to 28 were injured. Therefore, the igredients of section 109 are clearly brought out as against a - 1 and consequently we hold that a - 1 is guilty of the offence under section 302 read with section 109 i. P. C. And the lower court is perfectly right in convicting him of the said charge.

(99) The last charge which remains for consideration is charge no. 7 framed by the trial court, viz. , under section 302 read with section 149 ipc. It is framed against a - 1 to a - 64 to the effect that they were all members of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of which a - 1 to a - 32 and a - 63 caused the death of d - 1 to d - 4 which was committed with the knowledge of all the accused in prosecution of the common object. The lower court convicted a - 5, a - 6, a - 8, a - 11, a - 12, a - 13, a - 14, a - 18, a - 20, a - 21, a - 22, a - 24, a - 25, a - 26 (since died) and a - 63, of the charge under section 302 read with section 149 i. P. C. Almost all the direct witnesses including the injured witnesses deposed that all the accused came to the scene of offence armed with deadly weapons. It is also estbalished that their common object is to kill whoever of the prosecution party is found. Here the common object of the accused group is proved to be to commit the offence of murder. Once the court finds that an offence has been committed by some member or members of such unlawful assembly in prosecution of their common object, the other members of that unlawful assembly are constructively liable for the offence committed by the principal offender. Where the accused came together armed with deadly weapons, challenged the deceased in a determined fashion, it could be presumed that their common object was to kill or atleast they knew that fatal consequences were likely to ensue in prosecution of the common object. They are therefore liable under section 302 read with section 149 ipc. As already stated above, the trial court found a - 5, a - 6, a - 8, a - 11, a - 12, a - 13, a - 14, a - 18, a - 20, a - 21, a - 22, a - 24, a - 25, a - 26 (since died) and a - 63 guilty of this charge under section 302 read with section 149 ipc. Out of these accused, we have already given benefit of doubt to a - 14,a - 25,a - 26 (sincedied) and a - 63 disbeleiving their participation in the occurrence. We, therefore, hold that a - 14, a - 25, a - 26 (since died) and a - 63 are not guilty of the offence under section 302 r/w. 149 ipc. However, we are in entire agreement with the learned add itional sessions judge so far as the conviction of other accused, viz. - , a - 5, a - 6, a - 8, a - 11, a - 12, a - 13, a - 18, a - 20, a - 21, a - 22 and a - 24 and their conviction for the offence under section 302 r/w. 149 ipc is to be confirmed.

(100) The last point to be considered is regarding the sentence to be imposed against a - 1. As already found above a - 1 is guilty of charge nos. 4,5,6 and 10, viz. , under section 302 ipc for causing the death of d - 3, under section 302 ipc for causing the death of d - 4, under section 302 read with section 109 i. P. C. Under section 449 i. P. C. And under section 148 i. P. C. Considering the gravity of offence, the trial court imposed the maximum sentence of death under each of the first three charges on a - 1 and sentence of imprisonment for life for the offence under section 449 i. P. C. And r. 1 for a period of two years for the offence under section 148 ipc. In this connection it is contended by sri e. Ella reddy, learned counsel appearing for the accused that a - 1 is innocent and that it is not a fit case where a - 1 should be sentenced to death. According to him, the death should not be imposed except in rarest of the rare cases. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, according to the learned defence counsel, the death sentence imposed on a - 1 by the trial court deserves to be commutted to one of imprisonment for life in case a - 1 is found guilty of the charges framed against him

(101) Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case and considering the submissions made by the learned defence counsel, we feel that the maximum sentence of death is not called for in this case. It is true that a - 1 is the learder of the party and he is responsible for causing the deaths of d - 3 and d - 4. It may be remembered that it is a case which arose out of factions between the two groups. The prosecution party may be of minority group. There are several criminal proceedings pending between the two parties. It is not a free fight between the two groups. The accused party is proved to be the aggressors. The receipt of simple injuries by five of the accused group also suggests that the prosecution party were not armed with weapons, muchless deadly weapons and in retaliation or in self - defence they might have caused the injuries. The prosecution party and the accused party belong to yadava community and the dispute between the two groups is to gain supremacy over the other grou p. As already stated, there had been previous enmity between the parties by way of criminal court proceedings, bindover proceedings before the magistrate. Considering all these circumstances, we feel that this is not such a rates t of the rare cases in which death sentence is called for. Sentence of imprisonment for life will meet the ends of justice.

(102) In view of our above discussion, we find under charge no. 1 that a - 14, a - 25, a - 26 (since died) a - 28, a - 29, a - 53, a - 59, a - 60, a - 61 and a - 63 are not guilty of the offence under section 148 ipc; under charge no. 6 we find that a - 63 is not guilty of the offence under section 449 i. P. C. , under charge no. 7 we find a - 14, a - 25, a - 26 (since died) and a - 63 not guilty of the offence under section 302 r/w. 149 i. P. C. , and under charge no. 9 a - 28, a - 29, a - 53, a - 59, a - 60 and a - 61 are not guilty of the of fence under section 324 ipc. Consequently, we set aside their respective convictions and the sentences imposed by the trial court against them under the above sections of law. They are directed to be set at liberty forthwith if they are not required in any other case. The judgment of the learned additional sessions judge dated 27th april, 1993, in so far as it relates to these accused, viz. , a - 14, a - 25, a - 26, a - 28, a - 29, a - 53, a - 59, a - 60, a - 61 and a - 63, is set aside and the criminal appeal no. 555 of 1993 in so far as it relates to these accused is allowed.

(103) The convictions of a - 1 for the offences under sections 302 ipc in respect of the murder of d - 3, covered by charge no. 4, under section 302 ipc in respect of the murder of d - 4, covered by charge no. 5, under section 302 ipc read with section 109 ipc, covered by charge no. 10, under section 449 ipc, covered by charge no. 6 and under section 148 ipc, covered by charge no. 1 are confirmed. The sentence of imprisonment for life, imposed by the trial court on a - 1 for the offence under section 449 ipc including the sentence of fine of rs. 100/ - in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 7 days and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years imposed by the trial court on a - 1 for the offence under section 148 ipc are also confirmed. However, the sentence of death, imposed on a - 1 by the trial court under each of the three charges, viz. , setion 302 i. P. C. , in respect of the murder of d - 3, section 302 i. P. C. In respect of the murder of d - 4 and under section 302 r/w. 109 ipc, is set aside and instead he is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under each of the above three charges. The sentence of fine, of rs. 200/ - in defualt to undergo simple imprisonment for 14 days, imposed by the trial court under each of the above three charges is maintained.

(104) The convictions of a - 2 to a - 6, a - 8 to a - 13, a - 15 to a - 22, a - 24, a - 27, a - 33 to a - 37, a - 40, a - 41, a - 44 to a - 48 and a - 64 for the offence under section 148 ipc. , covered by charge no. 1, the conviction of a - 10anda - 19 for theoffence under section 302 ipc for causing the death of d - 1, covered by charge no. 2, the conviction of a - 2, a - 4 and a - 8 for the offence under section 302 for causing the death of d - 2, covered by charge no. 3, the conviction of a - 3, a - 15 and a - 27 for the offence under section 302 ipc in respect of the death of d - 3, covered by charge no. 4, the conviction of a - 9, a - 16, a - 17 for the offence under section 302 ipc for causing the death of d - 4, covered by charge no. 5, the conviction of a - 3, a - 9, a - 16, a - 17 and a - 27 for the offence under section 449 i. P. C. , covered by charge no. 6, the conviction of a - 5, a - 6, a - 8, a - 11, a - 12, a - 13, a - 18, a - 20. A - 21, a - 22, a - 24 for the offence under section 302 r/w. 149 ipc covered by charge no. 7, the conviction of a - 20 and a - 27 for the offence under section 326 ipc, covered by charge no. 8, and the conviction of the following accused, viz. ,for the offence under section 324 ipc, covered by charge no. 9, are all confirmed and the sentences of imprisonments and sentences of fine, imposed by the trial court on the above accused under the above said sections are all confirmed.

(105) All the substantive sentences of imprisonments imposed upon the aforesaid accused shall run concurrently.

(106) Criminal appeal no. 555 of 1993 in so far as it relates to a - 2 to a - 6, a - 8 to a - 13, a - 15 to a - 22, a - 24, a - 27, a - 33 to a - 37, a - 40, a - 41, a - 44 to a - 48 and a - 64 is dismissed.

(107) Subject to the commutation of the sentence of death into one of imprisonment for life imposed against a - 1, the criminal appeal in so far as it relates to a - 1 is dismissed and the reference made by the learned additional sessions judge (viz. , r. T. No. 3 of 1993) is accordingly answered.

(108) In the end, we appreciate and compliment the learned additional sessions judge, who made an earnest attempt in dealing with a heavy case like this involving four deaths and various types of injuries to 17 persons, by appreciating the evidence of as many as 49 witnesses and applying correct provisions of law.