http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8  

PETITIONER: GOLLA JALLA REDDY & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       25/04/1996

BENCH: MUKHERJEE M.K. (J) BENCH: MUKHERJEE M.K. (J) KURDUKAR S.P. (J)

CITATION:  JT 1996 (4)   587        1996 SCALE  (3)791

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T M.K. MUKHERJEE,J.      In Sessions  case No.  96 of  1983 on  the file  of the Sessions Judge, Anantpur 10 persons (hereinafter referred to as  A1   to  A10   respectively)  were  tried  for  criminal conspiracy, rioting  with  deadly  weapons  and  murders  of Kalapuram Paramasani  Narasimhudu, Golla  Jalla Malli  Reddy and Golla  Jalla Narayana  Reddy (hereinafter referred to as D1, D2 and D3 respectively). The learned Judge convicted and sentenced A1  under Section  302 IPC  and Section  3 of  the Explosive Substances  Act for  committing the  murder of  D1 with bombs  and A2  under Section  302 IPC (simpliciter) for committing the  murder of D2 and under Section 302 read with Section 34 for the murder of D1. A1 and A2 were acquitted of the Other  charges and A3 to A10 of all the charges. Against their convictions and sentences A1 and A2 filed two separate appeals in  the High Court and the State, in its turn, filed an appeal  against the  acquittal of the other eight. During the pendency  of the  appeal A1  died and  consequently  his appeal abated. By a common judgment the High Court dismissed the appeal  preferred by  A2 and allowed the other appeal in part by  setting  aside  the  acquittal  of  A3  to  A6  and convicting and  sentencing them  under Section 302 read with Section 34  IPC and  affirming the  acquittal of  A7 to A10. However, considering  the tender  ages of A4 and A5 the High Court recommended  their commitment  to Borstal  School. The above judgement of the High Court is under challenge in this appeal preferred  by A2 to A6 under Section 2 of the Supreme Court (Enlargement  of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 and Section 379 read with section 380 Cr.P.C. 2. Bereft of details, the prosecution case is as under: (a) Gola  Jalla Chinnappa  Reddy (P.W.1)  and A1 to A10, who are inter-related,  are residents of Brahmanapalli, which is at a  distance of  14 kms.  from Gooty  in the  district  of Anantapur. D2  and D3,  who were  two brothers,  also hailed from the  same place. Golla Paramasani Pullaiah (P.W.2) is a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8  

resident  of   Kalapuram,  which   is  8   kms.  away   from Brahmanapalli, who  was the  maternal uncle of P.Ws. 1 and 2 and D2  and D3,  was also  a resident  of Kalapuram.  At the material  time  A1  was  working  as  Branch  Postmaster  of Brahmanpalli and A2 was Munsif of that village. (b)  In 1981  P.W.1 was  elected  Sarpanch  of  his  village defeating T.  Narayana who  was set  up by  A2 and  in  that election A1  supported the  candidature of  P.W.1.  However, three months before the incident with which we are concerned in this  appeal, ill-feelings  developed between PW 1 and A1 over a  dispute regarding  the house of Golla Chandrasekhara Reddy (PW 7. P.W.7 took the house of one B. Hanumanthu on an annual rent  of Rs.60/-  out of which he paid him Rs.10/- in advance. Later  on he  came to  knew that the house actually belonged to  one Yarikala  Gampamma and  so he purchased the house from  her for  Rs.100/-.  Thereafter  when  Hanumanthu demanded rent  and P.W.7  refused to pay an altercation took place between  them and over that issue a Panchayat was held in which A1 and A2 figured as elders on behalf of Hanumanthu and P.W.1  and 93  on behalf of P.W.7. The dispute, however, could not  be settled by the Panchayat. A few days later A1, A2 and  Hanumanthu assaulted  P.W.7 and threw his belongings out of  the house.  P.W.7  then  informed  P.W.1  about  the incident who  advised him to make a complaint , however, did not file  any complaint  and left  the village  and  started living at Illuru. (c)  A week  after that  incident D3 was assaulted by A1 and A2 and  their men  in Gooty  and  an  amount  of  Rs.  400/- forcibly taken  away from  him. D3  informed P.W.1 about the incident but  did not  lodge any  formal complaint about the same. This was followed by another incident on September 22, 1982 in  which Suryanarayana  Reddy, brother  of P.W.1,  was assaulted near  a cinema  hall of  Gooty and  P.W.1 was told about the  same. On  the same  day the three daughters of A1 were assaulted in Brahmanapalli in their house for which one of them, namely, Bhagyalakshmamma lodged a complaint against P.W.1, D3  and his another brother. On that complaint a case was  registered   and  a   week  later  P.W.1,  his  brother Suryanarayana and D3 were arrested and subsequently released on bail.  After assault  on his  daughters, A1 along with A2 left Brahmanapalli and started living in Gooty. (d) A month later - on October 21,1982 to be precise P.W.1, P.W.2 and the three deceased went to Gooty to meet their  Advocate. On  their way  back they were arrested under Section  151 Cr.P.C.  and Crime  No. 102  of 1982  was registered against  them. They were produced in Court on the following day,  that is,  October 22,  1982 and  released on bail with  a direction  to appear  on November  2, 1982.  To enable them  to go  to Court on that day together with PW 1, D2 and  D3, D1  and PW 2 went to Brahamanpali on November 1, 1982 and stayed for the night there. (e)  On the  following morning, that is, November 2, 1982 PW 1, PW 2 and the three deceased left for Gooty by bus and got down at  the bus  station there at 9 A.M. They first went to Durga Vilas, a nearby hotel for tea and then, at or about 10 A.M., left for Court on foot along the National Highway with D1 and D3 little ahead of the other three. When they reached a place  near the  house  of  one  Subbaratnam,  A1  and  A2 suddenly emerged from the nearby thorny bushes. While A1 was having a  hand bag  with him,  A2 was  armed with  a hunting sickle. A1  then took  out a  country made bomb from the bag and hurled  it at D1 which hit him on the back and exploded. A1 hurled  two more  bombs towards  D1 which exploded on his face and he fell down crying. When the first bomb was hurled D3 went  running towards  them  and  D2  and  P.W.2  started

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8  

running towards the north. As soon as they reached the flour mill of  one Venkata  Reddy A3 to A6 came from the side of a Kottam, situated near the mill, armed with billhooks. Seeing them P.W.2  and D2 turned their back and began to run. A3 to A6 chased  them along  with A1  to A2 who had Joined them in the meantime.  P.W.2 and  D2 then entered into a lane on the western side  of the road where D2 was overtaken by them and dragged towards  a log  which was  lying there,  He was then made to lie on his back with his neck resting on the log. A1 and A3  to A6  caught hold  of D2 and D2 dealt a blow on his throat with a billhooks. A3 to A6 also gave blows on D2 with their billhooks.  Seeing this  P.W.1 and  D3 started running towards the  police station.  When P.W.1 and D3 were running A7 to  A10 appeared  there and started chasing P.W.1 and D3. They ultimately  succeeded in apprehending D3 and hacked him to death  near a  pond. A7 to A10 also tried to attach P.W.1 but he  succeeded in  escaping  and  reaching  Gooty  police station at 10.40 A.M. (f) At  the police  station P.W.1  narrated the  incident to Lakshman Dass  (P.W.16), the  Head Constable,  who  made  an entry (Ex.P.29)  thereof in  the general  diary  book  (Ext. P.28). P.W.16,  in his  turn, conveyed  the  information  to M.G.V. Ramna  (P.W.17) S.I.  of Police,  Gooty  who  was  at Yadiki  to  attend  a  Magisterial  enquiry  along  with  R. Ekambaram (P.W.19),  the Circle  Inspector of Police. P.W.17 and 19  then rushed to Gooty and on the way P.W. 19 got down at the  scene of  occurrence and  asked P.W.17  to go to the police station. in the meantime, P.w.1 had started preparing a written  report  of  the  incident  and  before  he  could complete it  PW2 had  also reached the police station. P.W.1 handed over the report (Ex.P.1) to P.W.17 which was attested by P.W.2 and on that complaint a case was registered against the ten accused. After registering the case and forwarding a copy thereof  to the  local Magistrate,  P.W.17 went  to the scene of  occurrence along  with P.Ws.  1 and 2. P.W.19 held inquest over  the three  dead bodies  in presence  of P.W.1, P.W.1,P.W.2  and   Boya  Peddaiah  (P.W.3).  Thereafter  the deadbodies were sent for post-mortem examination. On receipt of reports  of post-mortem  examination  and  completion  of investigation police submitted chargesheet and in due course the case was committed to the Court of Session. 3.     To   prove  its  case  the  prosecution  examined  19 witnesses of whom Golla Jalla Chinnappa Reddy (P.W.1), Golla Paramasani Pullaiah (P.W.2), Boya Peddaiah (P.W.3) and Desari Venkataramudu (P.W.4) figured as eyewitnesses. P.W.4, however, turned hostile. 4.   The appellants  who had  earlier pleaded  not guilty to the charges,  contended, in  their examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C.  that they  had been  falsely implicated  due to enmity. Though  they did  not examine  any witness  in their defence they  produced some documents to show that P.W.3 was an interested witness. 5.   In his  judgment the learned trial Judge first recorded that the  prosecution had  succeeded  in  proving  that  the accused persons  had a  motive to  commit the  crime alleged against them.  As regards  the incident  the  learned  Judge relied upon  the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 to the extent they named A1  and A2 as perpetrators of the murders of D1 and D2 and held that P.W.3 was not an interested witness as alleged by  the   defence.  He,  however,  declined  to  accept  the prosecution case so far as it related to the attack on D3 by A7 to A10 as PW. 1 was the sole eye witness and his evidence was not consistent with the medical evidence. 6.   In disposing  of the  appeals in  the manner  indicated earlier, the  High Court held that so far as the involvement

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8  

of A1  and A2  in the offences in question was concerned the findings of the trial Court were fully justified. As regards the acquittal  of A3  to A6 the High Court observed that the finding of  the trial  Judge  that  there  was  no  evidence regarding the participation of A1 to A6 in the incident and, therefore, it  was not  safe to  convict them  was  patently wrong for P.W.1 to P.W.3 had consistently deposed that A3 to A6 alongwith  A1 chased  D2 and made D2 to lie on the log in such a  way that  his neck rested on the log and A2 then cut the throat  of D2  with billhook. The High Court pointed out that the  trial Judge  was not justified in acquitting A3 to A6 on  the specious ground that the eye - witnesses were not able to speak as to on which part of the body of D2,D3 to  A6  inflicted  injuries  and,  therefore,  there  was  a reasonable doubt  about their participation in the offences. The High Court also took exception to the observation of the trial Court  that the medical evidence contradicted the oral evidence as,  according to it, there was no contradiction at all. According  to the  High Court the overwhelming evidence of  the  eye-witnesses  and  the  medical  evidence  clearly established that some persons must have caught hold of D2 in the manner alleged by the prosecution. The High Court lastly held that  A3 to A6 played active roles in causing the death of D2 and, therefore, they could not escape their liability. In dealing  with the prosecution case relating to the attack on D3 the High Court however observed that the trial Court’s finding that  it would  not be  safe to  convict the accused persons for  the above murder relying solely on the evidence of P.W.1 could not be said to be a perverse one. 7.   This being  a statutory  appeal we  have carefully gone through  the   entire  evidence  adduced  during  trial  and assessed the  same keeping  in view  the  judgments  of  the learned Courts  below. That  there was  no love lost between P.W.1, P.W.2  and the three deceased on the one hand and the accused on  the other  stands established  not only  by  the evidence adduced  by the prosecution but also by the plea of the appellants  that they had been falsely implicated due to enmity. In  view of this admitted enmity between the parties Mr.Madhava Reddy,  the learned  counsel  appearing  for  the appellants contended  that no  reliance should  be placed on the evidence  of PWs  1 and  2. We  are, however,  unable to reject their  testimonies on  that  score  as  unimpeachable evidence on  record clearly  shows that  they were  the most probable and natural witnesses. 8.   Undisputedly, at  the material time, cases were pending against PW  1, P.W.  2 and  the three  deceased and again on October   21,1982  they  were  arrested  under  Section  151 Cr.P.C. and Crime No. 102 of 1982 was registered against all of them.  The order  (Ext. P.12),  that was  passed  by  the learned Magistrate  on the following day on their production indicates that  they were  released on bail with a direction to appear  before him  on November  2  1982  at  10.30  A.M. Considered in  the above  context the claim of P.Ws. 1 and 2 that they  alongwith the  three deceased  were going  to the Court at  Gooty, when  the  murders  took  place  cannot  be doubted. 9.   Mr. Madhava  Reddy  next  contended  that  no  reliance should have  been placed  on the  evidence of  P.W.3 by  the learned Courts  below as  he was  a chance witness. From the evidence of  P.W.3 we get that he hails from Anaganidoddi of Gooty  Taluk,   which  is   about  three   miles  away  from Brahamanpalli. He knew P.Ws. 1 and 2, the three deceased and all the accused from before. On the fateful day he travelled in the  bus in  which P.Ws.  1 and  2 and the three deceased were also travelling and he got down at the old bus stand of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8  

Gooty. he  claimed to  have seen  the occurrence while going along  the   main  road   from  the   Gandhi  chowk.  Desari Venkataramudu (P.W.4),  who turned  hostile, supported P.W.3 in this regard when he stated that he was also travelling in the same  bus and  seen P.Ws.  1 to 3 and the three deceased travelling up to Gooty. In fact this part of the evidence of P.W.4 was  not at  all challenged  by the  defence.  Another piece of  evidence which  probabalises P.W.3’s claim to have seen the  occurrence is  that he  was  examined  during  the inquest held  by P.W.19 on the dead bodies shortly after the incident. If  really he was not present in Gooty at or about the time  the incident  took place  certainly  his  services could not  have been requisitioned by PW 19 from his village within such  a short  span for  the inquest.  While on  this point Mr.  Madhava Reddy further contended that in the first statement that made at the police station which was recorded in the  general diary  book (Ext.P/29)  by P.W.16,  the Head Constable, P.W.1  named P.W.2  but not  P.W.3 which  clearly indicated that  he (P.W.3)  was not  present at  the time of occurrence. We  are not  impressed by this contention of Mr. Madhava Reddy, for the name of P.W.2 was given in the report in the  context of  the fact that he was going to attend the Court alongwith  them in  connection with their case and not for  identifying   him  as   a  witness  who  had  seen  the occurrence. This  part, disclosure  of all  details  of  the incident including  names of witnesses in the oral complaint made to the police was not expected from P.W.1 at a point of time when  he had  just rushed  in to the Police Station for fear of life after having seen three murders being committed in a  ghastly manner. For the foregoing discussion the claim of P.W.3  that he  had seen  the occurrence  cannot also  be questioned. 10.  The next  contention of Mr. Madhava Reddy was that even if it  was assumed  that P.W.3  was a  natural and  probable witness his evidence so far as it sought to connect A3 to A6 with the  murder of  D2 could  not be relied upon for he did not implicate  them in  his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.  Similarly, he  contended, P.W.3 did not mention in that  statement that  A2 had  hacked the  throat  of  the deceased with a billhook. To appreciate these contentions of Mr. Madhava  Reddy it  will be  necessary to  refer  to  the evidence of  P.W.3 so far as it relates to the murder of D2. P.W.3 testified that after D1 fell down on being attacked by bomb thrown by A1, D3 who was accompanying D1 went hurriedly towards P.W.1,  P.W.2 and  D2. P.W.2 and D2 then went to the left of  the road and began running towards north. When they reached a  point near the flour mill of Venkata Reddy, A3 to A6 came  from the  side of  flour mill armed with billhooks. P.W.2 and  D2 then came back and entered into a lane towards west. In  the meantime,  A1 and  A2 joined A3 to A6. When D2 had run  a distance  of 4 or 5 yards from the road, A1 to A6 caught hold  of him  and he  was forced  to lie down and was dragged on  to a  log of wood. There the neck of D2 was made to rest  on the  log and  A2 hacked  the throat of D2 with a billhook while A1,A3 and A6 were holding his hands. A3 to A6 also struck D2 with billhooks. P.W.1 and D3 then ran towards the north.  In cross-examination  P.W.3 was  confronted with his  statement   recorded  under   Section  161  Cr.P.C.  as appearing in its copy furnished to the accused in compliance with Section  207 Cr.P.C.,to bring on record that therein he (P.W.3) omitted  to mention  that D2  was  felled  down  and dragged towards  the log,  that his neck was kept on the log before A2  struck him  and that A2 cut the deceased with the billhook. P.W.  3, however, asserted that he mentioned those facts to  the police  during investigation.  It appears from

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8  

the record  that while the above questions were being put to P.W.3 the learned Public Prosecutor pointed out to the trial Judge that  the witness  (P.W.3) did  not omit  to make  the statements pointed  by the defence, as would be evident from the original  statement recorded  under Section  161 Cr.R.C. but, admitted,  that those  were not  in the  copy that  was supplied to the accused. 11.  In his  examination-in-chief the  Investigating Officer (P.W.19 )  brought to  the notice  of the Court the original statement of  P.W.3 as  recorded by  him  (Ex.P.47)  wherein there was  no such  omissions to  which the attention of the witness was  brought  in  course  of  his  cross-examination (referred to  earlier). In  cross-examination,  however,  he admitted that  in the copy that was forwarded to the accused there were  Those omissions. If the above evidence of P.W 19 to be  believed then  it must be said that there is no basis for  the  contention  of  Mr,  Madhava  Reddy  that  P.W.3’s evidence in  Court should  not  be  believed  regarding  the actual roles  played by A2 to A6 in the murder of D2 in view of his  failure to  mention about it in his earlier version, but if  the copy  of the  statement of P.W.3 as furnished to the  accused  is  the  correct  one  then  the  defence  was legitimately entitled  to bring  those material omissions on record and  rely upon  the same.  Mr. Madhava Reddy, however strongly urged that Ex.P.47 was subsequently created to fill in the  lacuna of  the prosecution  case. Even we proceed on the assumption that owing to P.W.3’s omission to mention the facts to which his attention was drawn (referred to earlier) - in  his Statement  under Section 161 Cr.P.C. his testimony as to the manner in which D2 was assaulted by the appellants should not  be believed  still, as  our discussion to follow will show, the prosecution case as against the appellants is not affected in any way thereby. 12.  It has  already been  found by us that the claim of the three eye-witnesses  (P.W.1, P.W.2  and P.W.3) that they had seen the  incident cannot  be distrusted.  We therefore  now proceed to  consider the  worth of their evidence keeping in view that  P.Ws. 1  and 2  being  partisan  witnesses  their evidence needs  to be  examined with utmost care and caution and confining  our attention to the murders of D1 and D2, as both the  learned  Courts  below  have  exonerated  all  the accused persons of the charges relating to the murder of D3. After detailing  the background  of  the  incident  and  the circumstances necessitating their attendance in the Court at Gooty on  the fateful  day, which have been noticed earlier, P.W.1 testified  that at  or about  10 A.M.  when they  were proceeding along  the Anantapur  Kurnool  Road,  A1  and  A2 suddenly emerged  from the  adjacent bushes.  While A1 had a handbag with  him A2  was armed  with a  hunting sickle.  A1 brought out three bombs from the bag, one after another, and hurled at  D1. The  bombs exploded  on his  body and he fell down dead.  In narrating the incident further he stated that D2 & P.W.2 then started running towards the north. When they had reached  the rice  mill of  Venkata Reddy, A3 to A6 came there from  the side  of a  Kottam armed  with billhooks and started chasing  them. A1  and A2 a so joined them. For fear of their lives D2 and P.W.2 entered into a lane but A1 to A6 caught  hold of  D2 there. He was felled down and dragged towards a  log which  was lying there. D2 was made to lie on his back  with his  neck resting on the log and then, A1 and A3 to  A6 caught  hold of  him firmly  and A2  struck on his throat with  a billhook  and then A3 to A6 gave blows to the deceased with  billhooks  regulating  in  his  instantaneous death.  According  to  P.W.1,  D3  had  joined  him  in  the meantime. P.W.1  next testified  about D3’s  murder,  (which

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8  

need not  be reproduced  for reasons  mentioned earlier) and has rushing  to the  police station  for fear of life. P.W.1 was cross-examined  at length  but  the  defence  could  not elicit anything  to discredit  him except that he had enmity with the  appellants. On  the contrary,  the report (Ext.29) that he  gave to  the Head  Constable within half-an-hour of the incident,  corroborates his  evidence  for,  therein  he mentioned, that  when he  alongwith P.W.2  and D1 to D3 were going to  attend the  Court the ten accused persons (whom he named) came  from the  thorny bushes near the flour mill and followed them,  that A1  hurled bombs  on D1  and that  they hacked D2  and D3  with hunting  sickles  and  killed  them. Though all  the details regarding the manner of assault were not given  the sub-stratum  of the  prosecution  case  finds place therein.  both the  trial Court  and  the  High  Court found, that  besides the  above report  (Ext.29) the written report that  P.W.1 gave  immediately  thereafter  to  P.W.17 (P/1) - which was treated as the F.I.R.. - also corroborated his statement. In our opinion Ex.P/1 could not be treated as the  F.I.R..  as  Ex.P.29  clearly  disclosed  a  cognizable offence and  in fact police had started investigation on its basis. Consequently  Ex. P./1  which has  to be treated as a statement recorded  under Section  161 Cr.P.C.  could not be used for  the purpose  of corroboration  of the  evidence of P.W.1. However  this finding of ours is of no consequence in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 13.  The evidence  of P.W.1 as to the manner in which D1 and D2 were  done to  death is also corroborated by the evidence of  P.W.1   in  all   material  particulars,  including  the individual roles  that were played by A2 to A6 in the murder of D2.  In cross-examination,  however, it was elicited from him that  he did  not mention  in his  statement made  under Section 161  Cr.P.C that  D2 was made to lie down on the log of wood  and also did not state that A3 to A6 caught hold of him when  A2 struck  him with  billhook If  in view  of  the omissions -  which, obviously  are  material  and  therefore amount to  contradictions - we proceed on the basis that the evidence of  P.W.1   as also  P W  3 -  about whose  similar omissions we  have discussed  earlier - regarding individual roles of the appellants in the murder of D2 cannot be relied upon  still   the  fact   remains  that  there  is  no  such contradictions so  far as  their testimonies  seek to  prove that A3 to A6 chased D2 and P W 2 when they were rushing for their lives,  with billhooks, that A1 and A2 joined them and that thereafter  A1 to A6 caught hold of D2 and A2 assaulted him The  consistent evidence  of the  three eye-witnesses in this regard,  coupled with  the uncontroverted  fact that D2 met  with   his  death  there  with  a  number  of  injuries unmistakably proves,  independent of  the actual role of the six appellants  in the  assaults itself,  that all  of  them shared the  common intention to commit the murder. To put it differently, even  it is  assumed that  the prosecution  has failed to  conclusively prove  as to  the actual  manner  in which the appellants brought about the death of D2 still the circumstances as appearing in the evidence of the three eye- witnesses establishes  that all  of them  shared the  common intention to commit the murder. 14.  We next find that the ocular evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 gets  ample support  from  the  medical  evidence  adduced during trial.  Dr. V. Chandrasekhara Reddy (P.W.13) who held post-mortem examination  upon the  dead body of D2 found the following injuries on his person: (i). An  incised injury of 3" x 1" x bone deep over the left parietal region; (ii). Throat  cut at  the level  of adams apple extending to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 8  

the back  of neck cutting larynx, oesophagus, carotid blood- vessel and  spinal column  through the  body of 3rd cervical vertebra, spinal  cord and  muscles of neck on the back upto the skin Head attached to the body through 3" of skin on the back of neck with edges of the skin clean cut. Clotted blood present in and around the injury; (iii). Horizontal incised injury cf 4" X 3" x bone deep over front of  left should  with underlying  head of humerus bone fractured; (iv). Incised  injury of  2" x 1" x skin deep over middle of back of left thigh; (v). Oblique  incised injury  4" x 2" x bone deep over outer side of  left knee  joint with lateral condyle of femur bone fractured; (vi). Abrasion of 6" x 2mm over back of chest on left side; (vii). Abrasion  of 1"  x 1.2"  over front  of right  leg 6" below knee joint; (viii). Incised injury of 1/2" x 1/4" x skin deep over inner side of left thumb; (ix). Incised  injury of 1/2" x 1/4" x skin deep over palmer side of middle phalange of right middle finger; and (x). Incised  injury of  i/2" x  1/4" x skin deep over upper inter phalangial crease of the left ring finger with clotted blood present in and around;      He opined  that injury  No.2 (which  according  to  the prosecution was caused by A2) could have been caused by by a sharp edged  weapon like  billhook and  injury Nos.  6 and 7 sharp  edged weapon like hunting sickle. 16.  Dr.  T.  Parhathamma  (P.W.14),  who  held  post-mortem examination on  the dead  body of D1 testified that he found the following injuries: (i) Lacerated injury on right eye-brow  1" x 1/2" x bone deep transverse; (ii). Laceration on the left eye brow in the middle verticle 1" x i" bone deep; (iii). Laceration  on left  side of lower lip 1.1/4" x  1" x 1/4; (iv). Laceration on the left ulna 1/2" x 1/4" x bone deep; (v). Laceration on the chin 1.1/2" x 1/2’ x bone deep; (vi). Laceration  on the  middle of back at the level of T-8 to L.2  on the vertebra 6" x 3.1/2" x bone deep with clotted blood in tissues; and (vii). Laceration  1/2" lateral  to the above injury on left side 2" x 1" skin deep. P.W.14 found the surrounding skin of all the above injuries blackened.      On dissection  of the above injuries he found fractures of orbital  plate of  frontal  bone,  mandible  maxillae  on either side  of nose,  T.9 and  T.10 vertebral  rami on both sides, 9th  and 10th  on the  right side, 9th, 10th and 11th ribs on  the left  side and  skull bone.  He opined that the injuries could  have been caused by the explosion of country made bombs. 15.   On a  conspectus of the evidence of the eye-witnesses, particularly that  of P.W.3  who is  an independent witness, the evidence  of the above two doctors and other surrounding circumstances we fully agree with the conclusions arrived at by the  High Court  in the impugned judgment. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.  The appellants, who are on bail, will now surrender to their bail bonds to serve out the sentence.