Chennakesav Reddy, J.- This is one of the usual cases arising out of long-standing acute factions in the villages of the State. The criminal story is treaded through with the themes of recurrent acts of violence, of restless hunt to wipe out the opponents and of rigorous and sometimes brutal means of gaining supremacy in the village. 2. The village Aswaraopalem within the limits of Avanigadda Police Station in Krishna District is torn into two factions. There have been factions in the village for over ten years. One of the factions is led by Repalli Ramadoss A-1, and the other by P.W. 13, Repalle Venkateswara Rao. All the accused as well as Kondaveeti Seetharamaswamy (here in after referred to as ‘the deceased’) and the other material prosecution witnesses are residents of Aswaraopalem village. 3. All the accused are closely related inter se; so also the prosecution witness and the deceased. A-2 to A-4 are the sons of A-1. A-5 is the brother, and A-6 and A-7 are brothers-in-law of A-1. A-8 is a cousin of A-6 and A-7. P.Ws. 1 and 2 are brothers. P.W. 10 is the father-in-law of P.W. 1. P.W. 16, K. Chandraiah is the brother-in-law of P.W. 2 and father of the deceased. P.W. 11 is the maternal uncle of the deceased. P.W. 12 is the sister of P.W. 3. 4. The enmity between the parties was being fed and kindled intermittently by litigation, civil and criminal. One Nancharamma is the wife of R. Somayajulu. There was estrangement between Nancharamma and her husband, Somayajulu. Nancharamma left for her paternal home. Somayajulu is a cousin of A-1. He sought and secured the assistance of A-1 in the dispute between the couple. Nancharamma and her father, D. Venkateswarulu approached P.W. 13, the leader of opposite party,for his help. P.W. 13, it appears, ultimately developed illicit intimacy with Nancharamma. This incident aggravated the bitterness between the two parties. 5. It is customary in the village to conduct every year on 17th January, an auction of the monopoly right for the weighment of paddy produced in the village. On 17th January, 1973, as usual, P.W. 13 and the Sarpanch and other elders of the village conducted the auction. One P. Seetbaramaiah was the highest bidder and the bid was knocked down in his favour. 15 days thereafter, a rival auction was conducted by A-1 and his supporters. On 17th January, 1973, as usual, P.W. 13 and the Sarpanch and other elders of the village conducted the auction. One P. Seetbaramaiah was the highest bidder and the bid was knocked down in his favour. 15 days thereafter, a rival auction was conducted by A-1 and his supporters. In that rival auction, one D. Raja Rao was the highest bidder. Both the bidders engaged Mutha coolies. P.W. 13 canvassed business for P. Seetbaramaiah. It appears the rival auction held by the leader of accused-party further enkindled and embittered the rivalry and competition between the two factions. Four days after the rival auction was conducted by the party of A-1 the hayricks of P.W. 13 consisting of 100 car-loads of hay were burnt down. On 9th February. 1973 P.W. 13 gave a police complaint against A-1, A-3, A-4, V. Tatayya and some others. It was registered as Crime No.11 of 1973 under sections 435 and 536 Indian Penal Code, and the accused in that case were arrested by the Police. Exhibit P. 20 is the First Information Report in that case. 6. On one day at about 2’O-clock, the deceased P.W. 2, P.W. 13 and some others went to the house of A-1 and questioned him why they had unjustly set fire to the hayricks of P.W. 13. A-1, abused them in vulgar language. A-2 gave a complaint to the police on 13th February, 1973 alleging that P.W. 13 and his partymen raided their house and had beaten them. Exhibit P-21, is the first information report in that case. Subsequently, one V. Gouramma, wife of V. Tatayya, one of the accused in the arson case, gave a complaint on 21st February, 1973 to the police alleging that her husband had been abducted by D. Rajagopala Rao, the brother-in-law of P.W. 13, and others and the whereabouts of her husband were not known. The police filed security cases against the parties before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bandar. P.W. 13, party people executed security bonds without contesting the case. A-1’s party people did not execute the bonds and contested the case and the case was pending. 7. Now, on the date of occurrence, i.e. on 1st March, 1973 at about 2-30 p.m. while P.W. 14, the brother of Nancharamma, was driving his cart through the field of A-8, A-8 assaulted him. A-1’s party people did not execute the bonds and contested the case and the case was pending. 7. Now, on the date of occurrence, i.e. on 1st March, 1973 at about 2-30 p.m. while P.W. 14, the brother of Nancharamma, was driving his cart through the field of A-8, A-8 assaulted him. P.W. 14 left the cart there and ran to the village and informed P.W. 13 about the incident. Then at about 5 P.M., A-8 was beaten near Ramalayam by some of the adherents of P.Ws. 13. At about 6 p.m. all the 8 accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with the common object of wiping out their opponents and marched towards Ramalayam, A-1, A-3 and A-6 armed with spears; A-2 with an axe and the others with sticks. At a distance of about 25 yards towards north of Ramalayam there is a peepal tree. The road in front of Ramalayam runs North South. At that time P.W. 2 was going towards North on the road in front of Ramalayam to the house of P.W, 13, P.Ws. 4 and 6 were on the road near Ramalayam. P.Ws. 1 and 3 were at the pan shop of P.W. 10 situated opposite to Ramalayam. They had gone there to purchase beedies. P.W. 11 was returning from P.W 13’s house. They noticed all the accused coming from Ramakotipuram side and surrounding P.W. 2. A-2 hacked P.W. 2 with an axe on his forehead and on his right leg. A-2 speared P.W. 2 on the dorsal aspect of the right-hand and on the left leg. A-6 stabbed P.W 2 on the left-hand and on the left upper arm. A-7 hit P.W. 2 with a stick on the dorsal aspect of the right-hand and on the left thigh. The deceased who was standing near Ramalayam cried that his uncle was being killed. Then A-2 exhorted the accused to kill the deceased. Leaving P.W. 2, all the accused rushed towards the deceased and surrounded him. A-2 hacked the deceased with an axe on the head. A-3 speared him on the left eye-brow and A-6 speared him beneath the left elbow. One of the accused also stabbed the deceased on. the temporal rigion near the left eye. Shouting at the accused not to kill the deceased P.W. 1 ran towards the deceased and tried to rescue the deceased. A-3 speared him on the left eye-brow and A-6 speared him beneath the left elbow. One of the accused also stabbed the deceased on. the temporal rigion near the left eye. Shouting at the accused not to kill the deceased P.W. 1 ran towards the deceased and tried to rescue the deceased. Then A-7 hit with a stick P.W. 1 on the left shoulder and right wrist. All the accused then went away towards North. P.Ws. 3, 4, 5, 10 and 11 witnessed the occurrence. P.W. 16, the father of the deceased, on hearing the cries emanating from the side of Ramalayam came hurriedly to the temple. When he came to the temple he found P.W 2 near the peepal tree and his son near the temple, lying with Weeding injuries. His son was unconscious. Then after a few minutes after his arrival, his son Seetharamaswamy expired. P.W. 11 took P.W. 2 with the help of others to the house of P.W. 13. P.W. 1 narrated the details of the occurrence to P.W. 16. P.W. 16 sent a message to the village munsif through one K. Krishna Rao and he was informed that the village munsif was not in the house. He then sent word to his son P.W. 15 to come with a paper and pen. P.W. 15 on being informed came with a paper pen and pad. Thereafter, P.W. 16, ascertained from the witnesses present there, namely P.Ws. 3,4, 6.. 10, 11 who then they had witnessed the attack and on being told that all of them had witnessed the attack, he got the report Exhibit P-8 drafted by P.W. 15 to his dictation. P.W. 16 took Exhibit P-8 to the police station and presented it in the police station at Avanigodda at about 9 p.m. to the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.W. 20. P.W. 20 on receipt of Exhibit P-8 registered it as Crime No. 20 of 1973 and sent express fist information report to all concerned. On information that P.W. 2 who was also injured in the case was admitted in the private nursing home of P.W. 7 at Avanigadda, P.W. 20 proceeded to the nursing home. He recorded the statement of P.W. 2 in the presence of P.W. 7 who certified P.W. 2 to be conscious. He then sent P.W. 2 to the Government Hospital, Machilipatnam. He recorded the statement of P.W. 2 in the presence of P.W. 7 who certified P.W. 2 to be conscious. He then sent P.W. 2 to the Government Hospital, Machilipatnam. P.W. 20 then proceeded to Aswaraopalem and reached Aswaraopalem at 11-45 p.m. He visited the scene of offence and posted a guard at the scene of offence which was in front of Ramalayam in the village where the dead body of the deceased was lying. P.W. 21, the Inspector of Police, Challapalli, on receipt of the copy of the express first information report at 2 A.M. on 2nd March, 1972, left Challapalli and reached Aswaraopalerr by 5-30 a.m. He took over the investigation from P.W. 20. He inspected the scene of offence along with the village munsif, P.W. 17 and round two broken spear-heads, M.Os. 9 and 10, near the dead body 01 the deceased. He seized M.Os. 9 and 10 tinder Exhibit P-9. It was attested by P.W. 17, the village munsif. He held inquest over the dead body of the deceased from 7 a.m. to 9-30 a.m. in the presence of P.W. 17. During the course of the inquest, be examined P.Ws. 1, 3 and 4 and recorded their statements. He then sent the dead body for post mortem examination through a police constable, P.W. 19, to the Government Hospital Machilipatnam. He also sent P.W. 1 for medical examination and treatment as he found injuries on his person. He examined P.Ws. 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and others and recorded their statements. He searched for the accused and for the weapons but could not find them. 8. On 2nd March, 1973 at about 7-30 a.m. A-8 gave a report, Exhibit P-26 to P.W. 22, the Assistant Sub -Inspector of Police, Avanigadda Police Station, against Desinani Rajagopal Rao and two others of the prosecution party for an alleged offence under section 324 Indian Penal Code. P.W. 22 registered the crime and sent A-8 to the Government Hospital, Bandar, with a constable for treatment. 9. P.W. 8, the Superintendent of Government Headquarters Hospital, Machilipatnam, examined P.W. 2 on 2nd March, 1973 at 1-15 a.m. and found as many as 8 external injuries on his body. He opined that the injuries Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 were grievous in nature and the rest were simple. 9. P.W. 8, the Superintendent of Government Headquarters Hospital, Machilipatnam, examined P.W. 2 on 2nd March, 1973 at 1-15 a.m. and found as many as 8 external injuries on his body. He opined that the injuries Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 were grievous in nature and the rest were simple. Exhibit P-2 is the wound certificate issued in respect of injuries found on P.W. 2. He also examined P.W. 1 on 2nd March, 1973 at 1-45 p.m. He found two external injuries on P.W. 1. Exhibit P-4 is the wound certificate of P.W. 1. At about 12-20 p.m. on the same day P.W. 8 examined A-8. He found three incised injuries on. A-8. Exhibit P-5 is the wound certificate issued for the injuries found on A-8. 10. P.W. 9 the District Medical and Health Officer, Machilipatnam held autopsy on the dead body of Seetharamaswamy (deceased) at 3 p.m. on 2nd March, 1973. He found four external injuries on the dead body. According to him the death was due to shock and haemorrage due to the injury to the scalp bones. Exhibit P-7 is the post mortem certificate. He also opined that the death must have occurred ranging between 45 minutes and one hour fifteen minutes after the deceased had his last meal. 11. To continue the narrative, the Inspector of Police, P.W. 21, arrested A-1, A-4, A-5 and A-7 on 19th April, 1973 near Panchayat Office at Lingereddipalem and sent them for remand. On 5th May, 1973 he arrested A-3 and A-8 in Kothapet. He filed the preliminary charge-sheet on 2nd May, 1973 and final charge-sheet in the case on 3lst July, 1975 against the eight accused persons for the offence of rioting, murder, attempt to murder and other cognate and minor offences. 12. The key-note of the defence was that these were two groups of mutha coolies in the village, that there was a fight between the two rival mutha coolies at about 8 p.m. on 1st March, 1973 in front of the house of A-8 and in that flight A-8, the deceased Seetharamaswamy and P.W. 2 were injured. 13. 12. The key-note of the defence was that these were two groups of mutha coolies in the village, that there was a fight between the two rival mutha coolies at about 8 p.m. on 1st March, 1973 in front of the house of A-8 and in that flight A-8, the deceased Seetharamaswamy and P.W. 2 were injured. 13. The learned Additional Sessions Judge on an effective evaluation of the entire facts and circumstances of the case held that all the direct witness were fully tutored, that the tutored evidence could not stand the scrutiny of the cross -examination, that the prosecution came forward with a palpably false version and that the occurrence did not take place in the manner spoken to by the prosecution witnesses. He, therefore, acquitted all the accused. Aggrieved against the judgment of acquittal, the State has preferred this appeal. 14. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor canvasses the correctness of the conclusions of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 15. Before we proceed to examine the soundness of the conclusions of the Court below, we would pause to comment on one striking feature noticed by us while going through the evidence in the case. The record of evidence has been unduly swelled by repetitions and irrelevancies in the cross-examination of the direct witnesses. The chief examination of P.W. 1 runs to four typed pages. But the cross-examination occupied 18 pages, Prolonged emphasis is laid on trivial (matters. We could not evade the impression that the Additional Sessions Judge had permitted himself to be wearied by endless and pointless cross-examination. Sessions Judges and Magistrates have to be vigilant and should exercise effective control over the extent and manner of cross-examination of witnesses. They have the undoubted control and discretion to determine the length of time and the extent to which the witnesses may be cross-examined. It is the duty of the Presiding Officers to protect the witnesses against irrelevant enquiries and overrule a question repeated after being several times substantially answered. It is no doubt true that cross-examination is one of the most important processes for the elucidation of facts and testing the veracity of a witness and accuracy of the story unfolded by him. So all reasonable latitude must be shown. But the Judge has the discretion as to bow far and how long the cross-examination can go. Prolixexamination and cross-examination must be checked. So all reasonable latitude must be shown. But the Judge has the discretion as to bow far and how long the cross-examination can go. Prolixexamination and cross-examination must be checked. Irrelevant topics some times pursued at great length and persistence shown in going over the same ground again and again in the hope of making the witnesses discrepant must not be endured or permitted. Exercise of greater vigilance and control over the Court proceedings by Judges and Magistrates will not only save waste of public time and money but also help clear the backlog of arrears. It would be quite apposite at this stage to recall what Viscount Sankay, L.C., observed in Mechanical and General Inventions Company Ltd. and Lehwess v. Austin and The Austin Motor Company Ltd.1. At page 560 the Lord Chancellor observed: "....a protracted and irrelevant cross-examination not only adds to the cost of litigation but is a waste of public time." 16. Before embarking however on a consideration of the merits of the case, it would of great value to just remind ourselves of the scope of an appeal against acquittal. Several decisions have been rendered and further refined on the principles governing the appeals against acquittals. In a recent decision of the Supreme Court reported in Sethu Madhavan Nair v. The State of Kerala2, the Supreme Court observed: "In an appeal under section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against an order of acquittal, the High Court has full power to review at large the evidence on which the order of acquittal was founded and to reach the conelusion that upon the evidence the order of acquittal should be reversed. No limitation should be placed upon that power unless it be found expessly stated in the Code, but in exercising the power conferred by the Code and before reaching its conclusion upon fact the High Court should give proper weight and consideration to such matters as. No limitation should be placed upon that power unless it be found expessly stated in the Code, but in exercising the power conferred by the Code and before reaching its conclusion upon fact the High Court should give proper weight and consideration to such matters as. (1) the view of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses; (2) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly not weekened by the fact that he has been acquitted at his trial; (3) the right of the accused to the benefit of any real and reasonable doubt;and (4) the slowness of an appellate Court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses. The High Court should also take into account the reasons given by the Court below in support of its order of acquittal and must express its reasons in the judgment which led it to hold that the acquittal is not justified. Further, if two conclusions can be based upon the evidence on record, the High Court would not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court. It would follow as a corollary from that that if the view taken by the trial Court in acquitting the accused is not unreasonable the occasion for the reversal of that view would not arise." 17. Again in Dharamded Singh v. The State of Bihar1, Gupta, J., speaking for the Supreme Court observed: "It is well settled that in an appeal against an order of acquittal, if two conclusions can be based upon the evidence on record, the High Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court. It would follow as a corrollary from that that if the view taken by the trial Court in acquitting the accused is not unreasonable, the occssion for the reversal of that view would not arise." 18. We have, therefore, to examine whether the view taken by the trial Court in this case on the material on record is not a reasonable one. 19. To begin with, let us have a close look at the first information report, Exhibit P-8. This report was given by P.W.16, the father of the deceased. It is in the handwriting of P.W. 15, the brother of the deceased. 19. To begin with, let us have a close look at the first information report, Exhibit P-8. This report was given by P.W.16, the father of the deceased. It is in the handwriting of P.W. 15, the brother of the deceased. It was given to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Avanigadda, P. W. 20, at 9-15 P.M. According to Exhibit P-8, the occurrence took place at 6 p.m. Exhibit P-8 is a very lengthy document running to 3 pages of foolscap white paper. It gives full details about the motive for the occurrence and about the occurrence itself. It recites that on the day of the occurrence at about 6 p.m. while P.W. 16 was coming towards Ramalayam temple, he heard loud cries from the side of the temple and on hearing the cries, he ran up to the temple quickly. There he found his son, Seetharamaswamy, the deceased and Kondaveeti Venkateswara Rao, P.W. 2, fallen down in front of the temple with bleeding injuries. His son was unconscious and he died a few minutes thereafter. P.W.2 was taken to his father-in-law’s house. When P.W. 16 asked the people who had gathered there as to who had beaten his son and P.W. 2, P.W. 1 told him all the details about the occurrence. P.W. 1 told him that all the eight accused came running from Ramakotipuram side. A-1, A-3 and A-6 armed with spears, A-2, with an axe and the rest with sticks and surrounded P.W. 2 who was going to his father-in-law’s place near the peepal tree and that out of them A-2, A-3, A-6 and A-8 attacked P.W. 2 with the weapons in their hands indiscriminatley. Then P.W. 2 fell down. The deceased, Seetharamaswamy, shouted that his uncle was being beaten. Then all the 8 accused leaving P.W. 2 went upon- the deceased. A-2 hacked the deceased on the head with an axe and A-3 and A-6 speared the deceased and the deceased, Seetharamaswamy, also fell down on the ground. When P.W. 1 tried to intervene, A-1 hit him with a stick on the right shoulder. It is also further stated that P.Ws. 3 and 4 witnessed the occurrence. 20. A reading of Exhibit P-8 radiantly reflects substantially the prosecution story spoken to by the eye witnesses P.Ws. 1 to 4,6,10 and 11. When P.W. 1 tried to intervene, A-1 hit him with a stick on the right shoulder. It is also further stated that P.Ws. 3 and 4 witnessed the occurrence. 20. A reading of Exhibit P-8 radiantly reflects substantially the prosecution story spoken to by the eye witnesses P.Ws. 1 to 4,6,10 and 11. As already noticed, this first information report Exhibit P-8 recites that the occurrence took place at 6 P.M. near Ramalayam. P.Ws. 1 and 2 and A-8 were examined by P.W. 8 the Superintendent-cum-Civil Surgeon, Government Head Quarters Hospital, Machilipatnam. P.W. 2 was examined by him on 2nd March, 1973 itself at 1-15 a.m. Exhibit P-3 is the wound certificate issued by him. In Exhibit P-3 it is stated that the injured told him that he was beaten at about 7-30 p.m. At 1-45 P.M. P.W 8 examined P.W. 1 and issued the wound certificate, Exhibit P-4, P.W. 1 also similarly told him that he received the injuries at about 7-30 p.m. or 1st March, 1973. A-8 also was examined by P.W. 8 at 12-20 p.m. on 2nd March, 1973. A-8 also told P.W. 8 that he was injured at about 8 p.m. P.W. 8 in his evidence stated that P.Ws. 1 and 2 and A-8 would have received injuries at about 7-30 p.m. half an hour this way or that way. He also further opined that the time mentioned in the wound certificates Exhibit P-3 to 5 was approximately correct. It is clear from the evidence of P.W. 8 that P.Ws. 1 and 2 told him that they were injured at about 7-30 p.m. P.W. 1 also admitted in his evidence that the incident took place when it was dark at about 7-30 p.m. P.W. 1 further admitted that A-8 also was injured near Ramalayam at about 8 p.m. 21. P.W. 2 also admitted that A-8 was injured at about 8 P.M. near Ramalayam. Thus there is any amount of intrinsic evidence in the case to establish that the occurrence took place at about 8 p.m. near Ramalayam and not at 6 p.m. as put forward by the prosecution. That apart, at the scene of occurrence P.W. 21, the Inspector of Police, seized broken spearheads M.Os. 9 and 10 under Exhibit P-9. Thus there is any amount of intrinsic evidence in the case to establish that the occurrence took place at about 8 p.m. near Ramalayam and not at 6 p.m. as put forward by the prosecution. That apart, at the scene of occurrence P.W. 21, the Inspector of Police, seized broken spearheads M.Os. 9 and 10 under Exhibit P-9. It is very unlikely that these spear-beads would not have been noticed by either P.W. 16 or the other eye-witnesses if the occurrence had taken place at 6 P.M. during day-light. We have, therefore, no other option but to hold that the occurrence did not take place at 6 P.M. as stated in Exhibit P-8 and spoken to by the eye-witnesses. If that is the only conclusion that can be reached on the material on record, it follows that the story contained, in Exhibit P-8 is but an untrue and distorted story of the occurrence. 22. This Exhibit P-8 itself was admittedly given by P.W. 16 after enquiring all the eye-witnesses present at the scene of occurrence, namely, P.Ws. 1,3,4,6, 10 and 11. It contains full details about the occurrence P.W. 13, the leader, also admitted in his evidence that there are long standing factions between him and A-1 for the last 10 years, that there have been cases and counter-cases between the two factions, that he returned from Avanigadda only at 8 p.m. in the night and that after seeing P.W. 2 with bleeding injuries took him to Avanigadda to the private nursing home of P.W. 7 for treatment. Exhibit P-8 was presented at the police station at Avanigadda to P.W. 20 at 9-15 p.m. by P.W. 16. The distance between Avanigadda and Aswaraopalem is only 3 Kms. The police station and the Magistrate’s Court are in the same building and the Magistrate lives at a distance of one and half furlongs from the Court. Exhibit P-8 was, however, received by the Judicial Firs Class Magistrate, Avanigadda on the next day at 6-30 a.m. There is absolutely no explanation offered by the prosecution for the delay in Exhibit P-8 reaching the Magistrate on the next morning at 6-30 a.m. It is most likely as suggested to P.W. 16 that Exhibit P-8 was prepared in consultation with the leader P.W. 13 and with the advise of a lawyer at Avanigadda on the night of occurrence and then presented at the police station. Even a cursory reading of ExhibitP-8, however, leaves the impression that it is not a document prepared at the scene of occurrence itself to the dictation of P.W. 16, but a documet prepared after consultation. We very strongly feel that the story contained in Exhibit P-8 is a lying story and a story dominated by the desire for revenge. The prosecution has not come forward with the truth either with the origin and time of occurrence or the actual occurrence itself. 23. The evidence of the direct witnesses namely P.Ws. 1 to 4, 6, 10 and 11 is one secured to support substantially the prosecution case put forward in the first information report, Exhibit P-8. All the witnesses are closely related interse and are partisan and interested witnesses. Even as regards the overt acts of accused Nos. 2, 3, 6 and 7, they substantially support the story contained in Exhibit P-8. P.W. 1 is the brother of P.W.2. The conduct of P.W. 1 in not going to the house of P.W. 2 and not informing even to his sister-in-law after witnessing the gory attack on his brother and instead going home and sleeping until the next morning until the police came to examine him, is highly unnatural and not the conduct of a normal human being. If the occurrence did not take place at 6 p.m. as alleged by the prosecution and took place at about 8 p.m. - and that is our finding, already reached above, then P.Ws. 3, 4, 6, 10 and 11 could not be probable eyewitnesses to the occurrence. P.W. 2 also admitted that there were two groups among kata mutha coolies and A-8 was kata mutha cooly and it was said in the village that A-8 was beaten by some one. The suggestion of the defence is that there was a fight between the two rival groups of mutha coolies in front of the house of A-8 at about 8 p.m. and in that fight, Seetharamaswamy, the deceased and P.W. 2 and A-8 received injuries. 24. The suggestion of the defence is that there was a fight between the two rival groups of mutha coolies in front of the house of A-8 at about 8 p.m. and in that fight, Seetharamaswamy, the deceased and P.W. 2 and A-8 received injuries. 24. On an encyclopaedic view of all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are firmly of the opinion that Exhibit P-8, the first information report, does not contain a true and undistorted version of the occurrence, that it is a report rooted in revenge and brought into existence after consultation between the important members of the prosecution party and that the occurrence did not take place in the manner deposed to by the direct witnesses. The oral evidence of the direct witnesses, namely, P.Ws. 1 to 4, 6, 10 and 11 secured to sustain and support substantially the prosecution story contained in Exhibit P-8 is but the fruit of a poisonous tree and is unworthy of acceptance. We, therefore, hold that the conclusion reached by the Court below is but a reasonable one on the material on record. The order of acquittal is, therefore affirmed and the appeal is dismissed.