observation that PW1 during the course of his evidence made an improved version to the effect that all the accused along with others attacked him with deadly weapons like sticks, iron pipes, knives and sickle and caused injuries all over his body with pre-arranged plan by trespassing into school premises which was run by PW1. The Courts below observed that there was remarkable variation and improvement between evidence of PW1 and his version at the earliest point of time i.e. in Ex.P1 and his 161 Cr.P.C. statement wherein he did not mention about the accused allegedly causing injuries with deadly weapons with an intention to kill him. Both the Courts further observed that PW1 who is a practicing advocate, ought to have mentioned to the police at the earliest point of time all the facts which he stated in his evidence. However, Ex.P1 is totally silent on material facts which he stated in his evidence. Therefore, the material facts spoken in the evidence of PW1 relating to offence under Section 307 IPC and other offences were material omissions when compared with his earliest version. Hence, petitions cannot be allowed. The Courts below further observed PW2 who is another injured did not support the case of prosecution and he was declared hostile and during the course of cross-examination of Addl.P.P., he denied his 161 Cr.P.C. statement recorded by police during the course of investigation. Therefore, the Courts below held, there was no corroboration for the evidence of PW1. The Courts below also observed that PW3—the doctor who examined PWs.1 and 2 stated that the injuries found on PWs.1 and 2 were simple in nature. Above all,
