RAMESH MADHAV BAPAT, J. ( 1 ) ACCUSED Nos. 1 to 6, who were tried by the Principal Sessions Judge, Nalgonda in s. C. NO. 311 of 1998, are appellants herein. ( 2 ) THE accused/appellants were tried for offences punishable under Sections 148, 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code. On evidence, the learned Sessions Judge convicted A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-6 of the offence punishable under Section 148 of indian Penal Code and sentenced them to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for two years. The learned Sessions Judge also convicted a-4 and A-5 of the offence under Section 147 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for one year. A-l to A-6 were further convicted of the offence under Section 302 R/w. Section 149 indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. The sentences imposed upon the accused/ appellants were directed to run concurrently. ( 3 ) THE charge against the accused was thaton3-12-1996ataboutll. 15p. m. near the barbershop of one Ramulu of Vemulapally village all the accused caused the death of one Subhash Kumar. ( 4 ) THE prosecution story can briefly be stated as follows: the accused and the material prosecution witnesses are the residents of vemulapally village. P. W. 1 happened to be the brother of. the deceased, who was the president of N. S. U. I. , which is affiliated to congress Party. Accused /appellants belong to Telugu Desham Party. The deceased took active part in the last M. P. T. C. elections and as such the accused/ appellants developed grouse against the deceased. On 31-12-1996 at about 11 p. m. , p. W. 3 and the deceased started from the house of the deceased, went to a pan shop to take a pan and after taking pan they were returning home, it is alleged that when they reached near the barbershop of Ramulu, a-1 to A-6 surrounded the deceased. On 31-12-1996 at about 11 p. m. , p. W. 3 and the deceased started from the house of the deceased, went to a pan shop to take a pan and after taking pan they were returning home, it is alleged that when they reached near the barbershop of Ramulu, a-1 to A-6 surrounded the deceased. A-1 was alleged to have hacked the deceased with Talvar on his head and mouth, A-3 alleged to have stabbed the deceased with a knife on his head and mouth, A-2 alleged to have stabbed the deceased with a knife on the right side of his chest and backside, A-6 alleged to have hacked the deceased with an axe on his head and face and A-4 and A-5 were holding the deceased tightly when the other accused were beating him. ( 5 ) IT is further stated by the prosecution that the incident in question was witnessed by P. Ws. 2, 3 and 4. P. W. 2 went to the house of P. W. I and informed him that A-1 to A-6 attacked the deceased. Then P. W. 1 went to the scene of offence and found the deceased lying with injuries. P. Ws. 1 and 2 took the deceased to Police Station. On going to the police Station, P. W. 1 lodged a complaint (Ex. P-1) with the police. Ex. P-1 was received by the Sub-Inspector of Police at about 11. 40 p. m. On the basis of Ex. P-1, he registered a case in Cr. No. 198 of 1996 against the accused/appellants. He further issued copies of First Information Report to all concerned. As the deceased was alive by that time, he was sent to Government hospital, Miryalaguda. At about 12. 30 a. m. , the deceased died. On receiving the death information, P. W. 10 altered the Section of law to Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and issued altered First Information Report, which is Ex. P-9. P. W. ll, the Inspector of police, took up further investigation. He visited the scene of offence on 1-1-1997 and conducted a panchanama of the scene of offence. He proceeded to the Hospital and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in presence of P. W. 5. Ex. P-2 is the inquest report. ( 6 ) AFTER the inquest was over, the dead body was sent for Post-Mortem examination. He visited the scene of offence on 1-1-1997 and conducted a panchanama of the scene of offence. He proceeded to the Hospital and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in presence of P. W. 5. Ex. P-2 is the inquest report. ( 6 ) AFTER the inquest was over, the dead body was sent for Post-Mortem examination. P. W. 9 conducted Post- mortem examination and issued Ex. P-7 post-Mortem Certificate. According to the doctor, the causes of death was due to shock and haemorrhage due to injuries. On 31-1-1997 P. W. ll arrested A-2, A-4 and A-5. In pursuance of the statement made by A-2 it is alleged that M. O. 5 was recovered under a panchanama, Ex. P-4. On 14-3-1996 P. W. 11 arrested A-l and A-3. Their statements led to the discovery of M. O. 6 and M. O. 7, which are seized under Exs. P-10 and P-11. Thus, on completion of investigation, P. W. 11 filed the charge-sheet. ( 7 ) THE defence of the accused/appellants is one of denial. It is also stated by the accused/appellants that some unknown persons might have attacked the deceased and they have been falsely implicated in the case on account of political rivalry. It is also suggested by the accused/appellants that the deceased must have been knocked down by some heavy vehicle and thus he might have sustained injuries. ( 8 ) IN order to establish the fact that the deceased died homicidal death, the prosecution wants to rely on the evidence of p. W. 11, who conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased. P. W. 5 is an attesting witness to the inquest panchanama, which is produced on record as Ex. P-2. As stated earlier, after the inquest was over, the dead body was sent to P. W. 9, who happened to be working as Deputy civil Surgeon, Government Hospital, miryalaguda. On receipt of the requisition from the Police Station, he conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and noticed the following injuries:"1. Three lacerated wound left parietal region varying in size. 2. Lacerated wound 7" x 2" x 3" right cheek. 3. Lacerated wound 3" x 1/2" x 1/2" above the mouth. 4. Lacerated wound 9" x2" x1" fromleft cheek to chin. 5. Lacerated wound on left side of neck 3" x 1" x 1". 6. Three lacerated wound left parietal region varying in size. 2. Lacerated wound 7" x 2" x 3" right cheek. 3. Lacerated wound 3" x 1/2" x 1/2" above the mouth. 4. Lacerated wound 9" x2" x1" fromleft cheek to chin. 5. Lacerated wound on left side of neck 3" x 1" x 1". 6. Lacerated wound 1"x1"x 1" on the front of chest. 7. Lacerated wound frontal chest sub clavicle 3" x 1" x 1". 8. Lacerated wound front of left shoulder 3" x1/2"x1/2". " ( 9 ) LOSS of teeth and tongue cut". The Doctor opined that the cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage due to injuries. He further stated that the approximate time of death was within 10 to 14 hours prior to Post-Mortem examination. He issued Ex. P-7 Post-Mortem Certificate. 9. Considering the evidence led by the prosecution, on the point of homicidal death we hold that the deceased died homicidal death. ( 10 ) IN order to bring home the guilt of the accused / appellants, the prosecution mainly wants to rely on the evidence of P. Ws. 2, 3 and 4, who claim to be eyewitnesses to the incident. The police machinery was set in motion on the strength of First Information report issued by P. W. 1. P. W. I happened to be the elder brother of the deceased. He has spoken about the rivalry between his brother and the accused party. It is stated by p. W. I that the deceased is his younger brother and he became powerful in political field and, therefore, his rivals wanted to get rid of him, and hence the accused must have committed the offence. ( 11 ) P. W. 1 was not an eyewitness to the incident and the information regarding the incident was given to him by P. W. 2. Our attention has been invited by mr. C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior counsel for the appellants, to the First information Report, which is produced on record as Ex. P-1. The learned senior Counsel submitted that Ex. P-1 gives an impression that P. W. 1 was an eyewitness to the incident. But the learned Senior Counsel invited our attention to the evidence of P. W. 1, in which for the first time P. W. 1 stated that the information about the incident was given to him by P. W. 2. The learned senior Counsel submitted that Ex. P-1 gives an impression that P. W. 1 was an eyewitness to the incident. But the learned Senior Counsel invited our attention to the evidence of P. W. 1, in which for the first time P. W. 1 stated that the information about the incident was given to him by P. W. 2. We do not find any reason as to why P. W. 1, while giving the First information Report to police, did not speak about his source of information. Therefore, the evidence of P. W. 1 is of no use to connect the accused with the crime, because he has not spoken about his witnessing the incident. Therefore, the evidence of P. W. 1 is totally rejected. ( 12 ) AS far as the evidence of P. W. 2 is concerned, he claims to be an eyewitness to the incident and according to his version he had gone to buy a pan to a pan shop and while returning from the pan shop and when he reached the barber shop, he saw all the accused beating the deceased with knives, axes and Talvars. He further stated that out of fear he ran away from the scene of offence and entered a church, where he informed about the incident to P. W. 1. ( 13 ) P. W. 3 is also an eyewitness to the incident. According to his version, A-1 hacked the deceased with Talvar on his head and mouth, A-3 Bixam stabbed the deceased on his head and mouth with a knife, A-2 abraham stabbed the deceased with a knife on his chest, A-4 and A-5 were holding the deceased tightly, and A-6 hacked the deceased with an axe on his head and face. ( 14 ) THE evidence of P. W. 4 discloses that he is also an eyewitness to the incident. He stated that the deceased was attacked by a-1 to A-6. A-1 alleged to have hacked the decease with Talvar on his head, A-3 stabbed the deceased with a knife on his face and head, A-2 stabbed the deceased with a knife on the left chest of the deceased, A-6 axed the deceased on his face and head and at that time A-4 and A-5 caught hold of the deceased. ( 15 ) A plain reading of the evidence of p. Ws. ( 15 ) A plain reading of the evidence of p. Ws. 2 to 4 apparently shows that their evidence is corroborative with each other on material aspects. ( 16 ) WHILE commenting on the evidence of p. Ws. 2 to 4, the learned senior Counsel mr. C. Padmanabha Reddy submitted at the bar that the evidence of the so-called eyewitnesses, who alleged to have seen the incident, has been brushed aside by the medical evidence. Our attention was invited by the learned senior Counsel to the evidence of P. W. 9. While giving evidence and also while issuing the Post-Mbrtem certificate, the Doctor opined that the deceased sustained as many as nine lacerated injuries on different parts of his body. The version of the eye-witnesses to the incident discloses that the deceased was attacked with axe, Talvar and Knives, whereas the evidence of P. W. 9, the Doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, does not disclose any cut injury on the person of the deceased. Looking to the version of the eyewitnesses to the incident and the medical evidence, we have to accept the medical evidence, because the witnesses may lie but the circumstances would not. This principle is based on the ruling reported in Amur Singh vs. State of punjab, in which. Their Lordships held as under:"it has been already noticed that all the accused persons were armed with sharp weapons. It is the evidence of P. W. 5 that amar Singh, son of Bachan Singh, and rattan Singh were each armed with a sua, Lakha Singh was armed with a kulhari and Amar Singh, son of Isher das, was armed with a Kirpan. She said "then all the accused except Bachan singh accused surrounded my son Piara singh (deceased ). Then Lakha Singh accused gave a Barchi blow on the left knee of my son. Then Paira Singh (Deceased) feel down and all the accused then gave injuries to him with their respective weapons". In her cross- examination she said that the accused persons gave quite a number of blows with their respective weapons after they had overpowered him, and that many of the blows fell on the ribs and abdomen of deceased Paira Singh. But, not a single incised wound was found on the body of the deceased by P. W. 2 Dr. Verma. But, not a single incised wound was found on the body of the deceased by P. W. 2 Dr. Verma. Moreover, the medical report shows that there was no injury on the ribs and abdomen of the deceased. We are unable to accept the evidence of P. W. 5 that although a number of blows were given by the accused with their weapons on the ribs and abdomen of deceased, yet such blows did not produce any mark of injury. The medical report submitted by p. W. 2 shows that there were only contusions, abrasions and fractures, but there was no incised wound on the left knee of the deceased as alleged by P. W. 5. If her evidence that all the accused inflicted injuries on the deceased with their respective weapons, has to be accepted, then there would be incised wounds all over the body of the deceased, but the medical report shows that not a single incised would was found on the body of the deceased. Thus the evidence of P. W. 5 is totally inconsistent with the medical evidence. This Court in Ram Narain vs. State of punjab ( AIR 1975 SC 1272 : 1975 Cri LJ 1500) has laid down that if the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution is totally inconsistent with the medical evidence, this is a most fundamental defect in the prosecution case and unless reasonably explained, it is sufficient to discredit the entire case. There is no explanation for the apparent total inconsistency between the evidence of p. W. 5 and the medical evidence". ( 17 ) THE learned senior Counsel also relied on a ruling reported in Bhola Singh vs. State of punjab, in which the same principle was accepted. If once it is held that the evidence of eyewitnesses is inconsistent with the medical evidence, naturally the benefit has to be given to the accused holding that the eyewitnesses did not come forward to deliver the truth before the Court. ( 18 ) IN the above circumstances, we allow the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence recorded against the accused/ appellants on all counts. We further direct that they be released forthwith if not required in any other case.