JUDGMENT Ramesh Madhav Bapat, J. - The present appeal has been preferred by the State of Andhra Pradesh through the learned Public Prosecutor, aggrieved by the order of acquittal recorded by the Learned Sessions Judge, Srikakulam in Sessions Case No. 24 of 1996. The accused were facing in all five charges. The first charge against A-1 was under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The second charge against A-1 to A-10 was under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code. The third charge against A-1 to A-10 was under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code. The fourth charge against A-2 to A-10 was under Section 302 read with Sec. 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The fifth charge against A-1 to A-10 was under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution story can be briefly narrated as follows: A-2 happened to be the son of A-1, Kolla Bheemarao and the father of A-3 were brothers. A-3 to A-10 are the followers of A-1. Admittedly there were cases and counter-cases between the party of the accused and Bheemarao from 1982 to 1989. 3. On 3-11-1995 when Bheemarao going to his house through Reddika Street along With P .W. 1 and four others and when they reached Jagadhatti temple the accused alleged to have attacked Bheemarao. 4. It is further stated by the prosecution that A-1 and others caught hold of Bheemarao, threw him down facing the sky. Then A-1 alleged to have stabbed him with a spear in his abdomen and on hearing the cries of P.W. 1 and others. A-1 removed the spear and all the accused ran away from the spot. 5. It is the further case of the prosecution that as per the direction of Bheemarao. P.W. 1 went to the house of the injured, informed about the incident to the son of the Bheemarao named Kola Vasudeva Rao. Immediately Vasudeva Rao and others came to the spot. Then Bheemarao informed his son about the accused stabbing him. Thereafter Bheemarao was taken to a private hospital and from there to the Government Hospital at Tekkali. While the treatment was going on, Bheemarao succumbed to the injuries. Basing upon the medical intimation. Ex. P-7 and the report, Ex. P-6 preferred by Vasudeva Rao and handed over to the police, a case was registered. Thereafter Bheemarao was taken to a private hospital and from there to the Government Hospital at Tekkali. While the treatment was going on, Bheemarao succumbed to the injuries. Basing upon the medical intimation. Ex. P-7 and the report, Ex. P-6 preferred by Vasudeva Rao and handed over to the police, a case was registered. P.W. 15, the Circle Inspector of Police, Tekkali took up the investigation. 6. P.W. 15 held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and visited the scene of offence. Inquest was held in the presence of P.W. 9. Inquest report is filed on record at Ex. P-5. After inquest was over, P.W. 15 made arrangement to hand over the dead body to P.W. 12, the Assistant Civil Surgeon, who had conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. Ex. P-8 is the postmortem certificate. The Doctor opined that the deceased died because of internal haemorrhage. 7. P.W. 15 visited the scene of offence prepared panchanama of the scene of offence and attached the incriminating articles. Thus on completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed. 8. In order to bring the guilt to the home of the accused the prosecution led the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 15. Certain documents were produced and they were marked as Exs. P-1 to P-12. Certain contradictions were marked as Exs. D-1 to D-18. 9. In order to prove that the deceased died a homicidal death the prosecution wants to rely upon the evidence of P.W. 15, who was the Investigating Officer and who had conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P.W. 9. P. W. 9 happened to be the mediator when the inquest Panchanama. Ex. P-5 was conducted. 10. After inquest, the dead body was handed over to P.W. 12. P.W. 12 happened to be working as the Woman Assistant Surgeon. Government Hospital at Tekkali, who on receipt of requisition connected autopsy over the dead body and noticed the fol1owing external injuries: (1) “Cut injury 1-1/2 x 1-1/2 x 21/2" size present on the left side of the back of chest wall, bleeding from the wound is present near to the spinal column. (2) Diffused swelling of 8" x 7" present on the left side of the back of the chest wall. (1) injury present in the lower margin of the swelling. (2) Diffused swelling of 8" x 7" present on the left side of the back of the chest wall. (1) injury present in the lower margin of the swelling. (3) Intestines are present on the anterior abdominal wall above the umbilicus. The omentum of the intestines present on the anterior abdominal wall cut into four places. The intestines are also cut at one place 1" x 1/2" in size. (4) Cut injury of 2" x 1/2" x 3" in size present on the anterior abdominal wall 1" above the umbilicus. Intestines are protruding through the injury. " 11. On internal examination, she noticed the following internal injuries: "Skull: No fracture, Brain, Meninges and Cerebral vessels normal. Mouth teeth tongue and pharynx are normal. Chest: ribs intact on both sides, Diaphragm normal, Hymen normal, Oesophagus, Trachea, Bronchia, Pleural cavities, Lungs, Heart, Pericardial sab, large blood vessels are all normal. Abdomen: About two litres of dark clotted blood present in the abdominal cavity, Stomach: empty. Small intestines cut on the left side 15" long 3" width. Spleen also cut. It is 7" x 4" in size. Liver, gall bladder normal, Kidney and urethras right side normal left side cut into three pieces, diffusion of blood present in the perinea area. Urinary bladder and urethra: about 200 ml. of clear urine present. In the bladder Genital organs bilateral hydrocele present." 12. She opined that the deceased died because of shock and haemorrhage. The post-mortem certificate issued by her is produced on record at Ex. P-8. She opined that the injuries mentioned in Ex. P-8, post-mortem certificate are sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of the patient. 13. Considering the evidence led by the prosecution on the point of homicidal death, we hold that the deceased did die a homicidal death. 14. As stated earlier, the accused examined D.Ws. 1 to 4 in order to establish the fact that A-1 was not present at the scene of offence, but he was working in the Office of Animal Husbandry, though it was a Sunday. D.Ws. 1 to 4 happened to be the colleagues of A-1. Naturally they supported the defence version stating that A-1 was not present at the scene of offence, but he was present in the Office. This is one aspect of the matter. 15. The prosecution relied upon the evidence of P.Ws. D.Ws. 1 to 4 happened to be the colleagues of A-1. Naturally they supported the defence version stating that A-1 was not present at the scene of offence, but he was present in the Office. This is one aspect of the matter. 15. The prosecution relied upon the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4 who claimed to be the eye-witnesses to the incident. Out of these witnesses, P.W. 2 did not support the case of the prosecution. Then, we have the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 3 and 4, who claimed to be the eye-witnesses to the incident. 16. The evidence of these witnesses goes to show that on the date of the incident they along with the deceased were all coming together from the house of the deceased via main road. Nellore street and were proceeding to Metta Veedhi and when they reached Jagadhatti temple, the deceased was walking ahead of them by about four feet. The accused came from behind from the side of the temple. A-2 to A-9 alleged to have surrounded the deceased and caught hold of his hands and legs and made him lie flat on the ground. A-1 alleged to have speared in the stomach of the deceased. On seeing the incident, P.Ws. 1 to 4 shouted and on hearing their shouts A-1 alleged to have taken out the spear from the stomach of the deceased and all the accused have run away. This story of the accused 2 to 9 surrounding the deceased and A-I spearing through the abdomen of the deceased was witnessed by P.Ws. 1,3 and 4. Thus, they claimed to be the eye-witnesses to the incident. 17. The learned Sessions Judge disbelieved the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 3 and 4 mainly on three counts. It was observed by the learned Sessions Judge that admittedly there were two rival groups in the village. Therefore, their version has to be weighed with care and caution. The learned Sessions Judge further stated in the judgment that the manner in which the attack was made on the deceased was not believable. It was stated by the learned Sessions Judge that though P.Ws. 1, 3 and 4 have categorically stated that the deceased was made to lie down on the ground, he was caught hold of by A-2 to A-9. It was stated by the learned Sessions Judge that though P.Ws. 1, 3 and 4 have categorically stated that the deceased was made to lie down on the ground, he was caught hold of by A-2 to A-9. A-1 speared into his stomach and whereas the medical evidence shows that the abdomen wound is an exit wound. In other words, it means that the manner in which the attack was made on the deceased was not witnessed by P.Ws. 1, 3 and 4. When they came up with a positive case that the wound on the stomach is an entry wound the said evidence was negatived by the medical evidence stating that the wound noticed on the stomach was an exit wound which means that A-1 must have speared the deceased from the back side. Therefore, the presence of P.Ws. 1, 3 and 4 at the scene of offence and witnessing the incident was held by the learned Sessions Judge as highly doubtful. 18. The learned Sessions Judge further disbelieved the evidence of these three witnesses on the ground that the Investigating Officer categorically admitted in his evidence that apart from recording the statements of P.Ws. 1 to 4 in the present case, he had also recorded the statements of L.Ws. 17 to 30. They are the persons who stay nearby the scene of offence. In their statements they have categorically stated that P.Ws. 1 to 4 were not present at the scene of offence, and therefore, their presence at the scene of offence was held by the learned Judge to be doubtful, and therefore, it was held that these witnesses are planted witnesses and they are not the eyewitnesses in the real sense. 19. Further the evidence of D.Ws. 1 to 4 was disbelieved by the learned Judge on the ground that D.Ws. 1 to 4 were admittedly the colleagues of A-1 and therefore they are bent upon to support A-1 and even if the evidence of D.Ws. 1 to 4 is not believed so as to hold that A-1 was not at all present at the scene of offence the fact remains that the prosecution could not prove the presence of A-1 at the scene of offence as the evidence of the so called eye-witnesses. P.Ws. 1, 3 and 4 was held to be doubtful. 20. 1 to 4 is not believed so as to hold that A-1 was not at all present at the scene of offence the fact remains that the prosecution could not prove the presence of A-1 at the scene of offence as the evidence of the so called eye-witnesses. P.Ws. 1, 3 and 4 was held to be doubtful. 20. Under these circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of acquittal recorded against the accused-respondents. Hence the appeal filed by the State is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.