IMPORTANT POINT
Where a Criminal Court has to deal with evidence pertaining to commission of offence involving large number of victims and offenders, it is usual to adopt test that conviction could be sustained only if it was supported by two or three or more witnesses.

JUDGMENT

Thomas, J.-In this case of an organised mass attack unleashed on some unarmed victims 4 persons were killed and 17 were injured, many of them grievously. Police charge-sheeted 64 persons as accused in this case, but the Sessions Court convicted only 45 among them for various offences, common of which is rioting with deadly weapons. Among those accused who were convicted of murder, the trial court sentenced first accused to death and others who were convicted under Section 302 IPC with or without the aid of Section 149 IPC were sentenced to life imprisonment. Shorter terms of imprisonment were awarded to those accused who were convicted of lesser offences. Out of the 45 convicted persons one died after trial Court judgment and so the High Court of Andhra Pradesh heard the appeals filed by the remaining 44 persons. A Division Bench of the High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence as against 35 of them, except that the sentence of death passed on the first accused was reduced to imprisonment for life. This appeal has been filed by the aforesaid 35 persons after obtaining special leave.

2. The case put forward by the prosecution as against the appellants is, in short, this: A feud developed among the members of Yadav community in Chennapuram village. On division was headed by first accused (Baddi Venkata Narasayya) and the other faction was led by Baddi Mallesu (one of the persons killed). The acrimony which existed as between the two factions mounted up day by day and the police had to resort to proceedings under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against persons belonging to the rival groups, besides registering other criminal cases against some of them. But those steps did not abate the intensity of bitterness between members of the warring groups. Those belonging to the group led by Baddi Mallesu perched themselves in a Harijan colony at Chennapuram village and they thought that they were safe from the attack of the other faction. But such hopes were belied when all the accused persons under the leadership of the first accused marched to the Harijan colony armed with deadly weapons, such as spears, choppers, sticks, stones etc., during the morning hours of 30.10.1988 and made a massive attack on the persons who had sheltered themselves in different houses situated in the Harijan Colony. What followed thereafter was a terribly violent mayhem. When the assailants retreated from the field four dead bodies and a large number of brutally mutilated persons were lying on the ground.

3. In the trial Court prosecution examined altogether 49 witnesses which list included injured persons and other eye witnesses. Trial Court and the High Court have made detailed evaluation of the evidence and came to the finding that there was an unlawful assembly consisting of the convicted persons the common object of a number of them was to kill the members of the rival faction.

4. After hearing learned counsel on both sides we are not persuaded to re-evaluate the evidence in view of the concurrent findings reached on the crucial points regarding formation of unlawful assembly and their common object.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, submitted that in view of the large number of victims and assailants involved in this occurrence it is not expedient to confirm the conviction against those accused whose participation in the action has not been supported by the reliable testimony of at least two witnesses.

6. We too are of the opinion that on the facts and evidence in this case and on account of large number of assailants and victims involved in the case it would be a prudent exercise to follow the ratio evolved by this Court in Masalti v. The State of Uttar Pradesh1, which was reiterated by this Court in later decisions including the recent one Binay Kumar Singh v. The State of Biha2. We extract below the said ratio :

"Where a criminal court has to deal with evidence pertaining to the commission of an offence involving a