Accused 1 to 4 and 6 to 10 in S.C.No.259/95 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Kollam are the appellants. The first accused is faced with conviction for the offence punishable under Sections 304 Part-I, 148, 448 and 427 of the Indian Penal code. The other accused are faced with conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 326, 448 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. Altogether there were 13 accused. The rest were acquitted.

2. The prosecution case was that all the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly at about 7.30 P.M. on 20.3.1993 in a public road near the shop of one Thomas, the deceased in this case, committed rioting and inflicted injuries on PWs.1 to 4 and the deceased. First accused threw an acid bulb on PW.1 and the said Thomas sustained burn injuries out of that. Accused 1, 2 and 3 had trespassed into the shop of PW.3 and accused 13 committed an assault on him causing injury on left arm, back and shoulder. The 10th accused had assaulted PW.2 causing injury on his head, flank, elbow and knees. He had also trespassed into the shop of the deceased. Accused 4 to 6 trespassed into the shop of PW.4 and the 4th accused committed an assault on PW.4.

3. The prosecution attempted to prove the incident on the strength of PWs.1 to 15 and Exts. P1 to P32.

4. The injured persons were taken to the nearest hospital at Kottarakkara. PW.10 examined them and issued Exts.P4 to P7 wound certificates. Thomas, the deceased in this case, was referred to the Medical College Hospital., Thiruvananthapuram. The details regarding his treatment are not available. But he succumbed to the injuries after about 20 days on 9.4.1993. Ext.P10 is the post mortem certificate issued by PW.11 who conducted the autopsy. Ext.P1 First information statement was recorded from PW.1, one among the injured by PW.13, Sub Inspector. PW.13 registered the FIR and arrayed accused persons, apart from others who could be identified by sight. PW.14 conducted the investigation and filed reports before the court disclosing the identification of the accused persons. Later, it was transferred to C.B.C.I.D. and PW.15 conducted investigation and laid charges. Appreciating the evidence on record, the appellants were convicted as aforesaid.

5. At the threshold, it is submitted by the counsel for the appellants that going by the evidence given by PW.14 he had questioned all the witnesses and recorded their statements before he filed the reports. According to him, he had sent all the records to PW-15, the successor to him, in the C.B.C.I.D. PW.15 also initially stated that all the statements of the witnesses obtained were produced before the court. He had admitted that he had also recorded some statements during his investigation. But he had to concede that all the witnesses had been questioned by PW.14 who recorded their statements. But, at the committal stage, only the statements of the witnesses under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. recorded by PW.15 alone were furnished to the accused. It was when PW.14 was cross-examined, it came to light that he had also recorded statements of the very same witnesses under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. But the fact remained that the said statements had not been furnished to the accused, thereby prejudicing the accused to formulate their defence strategy. It is a protection in terms of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that all the statements recorded under Section 161(3) of the said Code shall be furnished to the accused persons. That mandatory provision has been overlooked in this case, prejudicing the accused from moulding their defence case.

6. It is submitted by the Public Prosecutor that whatever records available and produced before the court had been furnished to the accused. If at all they could not get any statement of any of the witnesses; while the trial was going, it was incumbent on the counsel for the accused to point out to the court and obtain those statements and the court would have grante