The need for reliable and corroborative evidence, the duty of the court to scrutinize evidence with care and caution, and granting the benefit of doubt to the accused when reasonable doubt arises.

1. Appellants, who are accused A1 to A4 in S.C.323/03 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Adhoc-III, Thalassery challenge the conviction under Section 143, 147, 148, 452, 324 and 307 r/w 149 IPC. The charge against the accused is that on 19.11.99 at 8.30 am, the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons like sword, dagger etc, and in prosecution of the common object committed rioting and trespassed into the house K.P.X/238 of Kodiyeri amsom, Moozhikkara desom with an intention to cause death, A1 cut on the left hand of PW2 with sword and A2 before cut on the leg of PW2 caused simple hurt. As a result, PW2 sustained grievous injuries inside the house K.P. X/238, Kodiyeri amsom, Moozhikkara desom and thereby the accused committed the offence. Chokkly Police registered a Crime No.167/99 under Section 143, 147, 148, 452, 324 and 307 r/w 149 IPC. After completing investigation, Circle Inspector of Police Panoor laid charge before Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thalassery. A5 is absconding, therefore, his case was split up and the case of A1, A3 and A4 was committed to Sessions Court Thalassery and it was taken on file as S.C. No.406/04 and the case of A2 was committed and it was numbered as S.C. No.323/03. The cases were made over to Addl. Sessions Judge, Adhoc III, Thalassery and both cases were clubbed together and tried as S.C.323/03.

2. During trial, prosecution examined PW1 to PW13 and marked Exts.P1 to P9 as documentary evidence and admitted MO1 to MO8 as material objects. The incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence were denied by the accused while questioning them under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. They did not adduce any defence evidence. During cross-examination of PW1 and PW2, Ext.D1 to D4 were marked in the trial court. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Adhoc-III convicted the accused (A1 to A4) and sentenced to R.I. for 3 months each u/s.143 r/w 149 IPC and R.I. for 1 year each u/s.147 r/w 149 IPC and R.I. for 2 years each for the offence u/s.148 r/w 149 IPC and R.I. for 3 years each and a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, imprisonment for 6 months each u/s.452 r/w 149 IPC and R.I. for 2 years each for the offence u/s.324 r/w 149 IPC and R.I. for 5 years each and a fine of Rs.15,000/- each, in default, imprisonment for 9 months each for the offence u/s.307 r/w 149 IPC. If the fine amount is realized, it was directed that Rs.50,000/- shall be paid to PW2 as compensation u/s.357(1)(b) Cr.P.C. Being aggrieved by that, they preferred this appeal.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that there is inordinate delay of 29 days in recording the statement of the injured witness. Prosecution is silent about the delay, which creates a doubt in the credibility of the prosecution case. The eye witness PW1 gave Ext.P1 statement to the police which is inconsistent with the oral testimony of PW2. If PW1 is believed, the evidence of PW2 is not believable. Another eye witness PW5 also gave a different story with regard to the occurrence. The incident happened inside the house of PW6, Nalini who also did not see the incident. The weapons were not recovered by the investigating officers. PW2 gave inconsistent version about weapons which is not corroborating with the evidence in the wound certificate. Therefore, the injuries noted by the Doctors who treated PW2 is not tallying with the nature of weapon stated by PW2. The origin of the incident was from the shop of one Panchara Kannan, who was not cited as witness in this case. Non-mentioning of the name of the assailants in Ext.P2 and the name of the weapon stated to the Doctor also create a doubt in the oral evidence of PW2. This shows that name of the assailants and the name of weapons stated by PW2 was only after thought. In the court charge, the overt act is alleged against A1 alone, that too an injury on the left hand. Therefore, the oral testimony of PW2 without any independent corroboration creates a dou