B. PRAKASH RAO, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is at the instance of the State against the acquittal of A-1 to A-9, A-12 to a- 19, A-21 to A-29, A-31 to A-33, A-35 to a- 44 who were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 148,147,302,302 r/w Section 149, Section 324 IPC and section 324 r/w 149 IPC as per the judgment in S. C. No. 233 of 1995 dated 9-2-1999 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, rajahmundry, East Godavari District. Initially, there were 44 accused in all. However, A-10, A-ll, A-20 and A-34 died during the trial and the case against A-30 was separated. ( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution is that p. Ws. 1 to 11 are the residents of villages viz. , medicherla, K. Veeravaram, Sitaram, chinaramanayyapeta, Gobbapalem and kudipalli, whereas all the accused are the members of Ryuthu Cooli Sangham. The deceased was a resident of Kottavaram village. There was a dispute in regard to the land in R. S. No. 88/3 and 109 admeasuring ac. 12-00 situate at Chinnaramanayyapeta village due to claims between one muthyalarayudu and his brothers on the one hand and the tribals on the other side. However, in the proceedings before the director of Settlements, Hyderabad, went in favour of Muthyalarayudu and his brothers but the Rythu Cooli Sangham, which was headed by A-1, was trying to occupy the land and there was already a case in that connection. The deceased was one of the supporters of Muthyalarayudu and was cultivating the land along with them. ( 3 ) ON 14-5-1991 at about 1. 45 p. m. , the deceased, P. Ws. 1 to 5, and P. Ws. 7 to 11 went to the mango garden to pluck mangoes. At that time, all the accused forming themselves into an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons like axes, bows and arrows, spears and sticks with a common intention of doing away with the deceased trespassed into the said land. A-l inflicted an injury on the deceased with arrows on his back and legs and after he fell down, A-l hacked him with an axe on his neck. A-2 inflicted injury on the deceased with arrows on the left leg and also stabbed him with a spear indiscriminately. A-3 stabbed the deceased indiscriminately. A-l inflicted an injury on the deceased with arrows on his back and legs and after he fell down, A-l hacked him with an axe on his neck. A-2 inflicted injury on the deceased with arrows on the left leg and also stabbed him with a spear indiscriminately. A-3 stabbed the deceased indiscriminately. Further, A- 4 to A-44 shot arrows from their bows at the deceased causing multiple injuries all over the body, as a result of which, the deceased died. Further, A-l and a-3 shot arrows from their bows and caused injuries over the right rib of P. W. 1. P. Ws. 3, 4 and 8, L. Ws. 2 and 6 received multiple injuries as the accused shot arrows from their bows. ( 4 ) ON hearing about the clash between the rival groups, P. W. 18, the Assistant Sub- inspector of Police Y. Ramavaram Police station rushed to the scene and recorded the statement of P. W. 1, which is marked as ex. P-1. P. W. 20, the Sub-Inspector of Police of Devipatnam Police Station received ex. P-1 from P. W. 18 and registered as Crime no. 28 of 1991 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302, 307, 324, 447 r/w Section 149 IPC and issued the FIRs to the concerned. Ex. P-36 is the FIR. Thereafter, p. W. 20 informed about the incident to p. W. 21, the Inspector of Police, who visited the scene of offence and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P. W. 12 and others and examined P. Ws. 5 to 7 at the time of the inquest. The inquest report is marked as ex. P-4. P. W. 20 seized the blood stained earth and control earth which are marked as m. Os. 21 and 22 and other articles found at the scene. The rough sketch and plan prepared by him was marked as Ex. P-37. Thereafter, the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination through p. W. 14, Police Constable and late dr. V. V. Chalapathi Rao, Senior Medical officer, Government Hospital, rampachodavaram, conducted postmortem on the dead body and issued ex. P-24, post-mortem certificate. P. W. 16 who worked as Civil Assistant Surgeon at the relevant point of time, identified the signature of late Dr. V. V. Chalapathi Rao. P. W. 16 examined P. Ws. V. V. Chalapathi Rao, Senior Medical officer, Government Hospital, rampachodavaram, conducted postmortem on the dead body and issued ex. P-24, post-mortem certificate. P. W. 16 who worked as Civil Assistant Surgeon at the relevant point of time, identified the signature of late Dr. V. V. Chalapathi Rao. P. W. 16 examined P. Ws. 1 to 4 and 8 and another person and issued the accident register in Exs. P-19 to 23. P. W. 16 also examined A-17 on 14-5-1991 at 6. 50 p. m. and found one injury. Ex. D-6 is the copy of the accident register. P. W. 21, the Inspector of police, recorded the statements of P. Ws. 1 to 4 at Angaluru village and examined P. Ws. 9 and 10 on 18-5-1991. P. W. 21 arrested A-38 to 42 on 1-6-1991 at Museemilli. P. W. 20 arrested A-43 and 44 on 10-7-1991 and seized a revolver and cartridges. P. W. 21 arrested a-3, A-7 and A-16 on 14-7-1991 and after completing the investigation, filed the charge-sheet. ( 5 ) THE case of the accused is one of total denial. During the trial, the prosecution examined P. Ws. 1 to 21 and marked Exs. P-1 to P-41. No evidence was let in on behalf of the accused except marking Exs. D-1 to D-6. ( 6 ) ON a consideration of the evidence on record, the Sessions Court acquitted the aforesaid accused of the charges having found them not guilty. ( 7 ) THE prosecution relied on the evidence of P. Ws. 21, P. W. 12, P. W. 14 and P. W. 16 to establish that the death was homicidal. On visiting the scene of offence, after receipt of information, P. W. 21, the Inspector of police conducted the inquest over the dead body in the presence of panch P. W. 12 and prepared the inquest report Ex. P-4. Later, the dead body was sent through P. W. 14 , police Constable to the Government hospital, Rampachodavaram where late dr. V. V. Chalapathi Rao conducted postmortem on the body of the deceased. The doctor found as many as 42 external injuries and also several internal injuries. The cause of death as per the opinion of late dr. V. V. Chalapathi Rao is shock and haemorrhage due to injuries to vital organs like lungs, liver etc. Ex. P-24 is the postmortem certificate. The doctor found as many as 42 external injuries and also several internal injuries. The cause of death as per the opinion of late dr. V. V. Chalapathi Rao is shock and haemorrhage due to injuries to vital organs like lungs, liver etc. Ex. P-24 is the postmortem certificate. P. W. 16, who worked as civil Assistant Surgeon in the said hospital identified the signature of late dr. V. V. Chalapathi Rao. Therefore, this evidence leads us to conclude that the death was homicidal. ( 8 ) NOW it has to be seen whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused. ( 9 ) P. WS. 1 to 4 and 8 are the injured eyewitnesses and P. Ws. 5 to 7 and 9 to 11 are the eye-witnesses. All the accused, the deceased and P. Ws. 1 to 11 belong to tribal community and are residents of tribal villages. The dispute was in regard to R. S. No. 88/3 and 109, which ultimately went in favour of muthyalarayudu in a proceeding before the director of Settlements, Hyderabad and the said land was being cultivated by the said muthyalarayudu along with his brothers and the deceased. They had raised a mango garden in the said land. However, the members of Rythu Cooli Sangham to which the accused belong have been objecting to the same and even tried to occupy the same. Earlier, in view of the trespass committed by them, Cr. No. 26 of 1991 was registered in the devipatnam Police Station. According to the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 11, the accused came with deadly weapons like axes, arrows, spears, sticks and trespassed into the land. A-1 to A-3 are stated to have caused stab injuries and also hacked the deceased with axes. A-3 also caused injuries to P. Ws. 2 to 4 by shooting arrows. On receipt of the information, P. W. 18, the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police came to the scene of offence and recorded the statement of P. W. 1 and thereupon, P. W. 20, the Sub-Inspector of police, registered the same as the First information Report. A-3 also caused injuries to P. Ws. 2 to 4 by shooting arrows. On receipt of the information, P. W. 18, the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police came to the scene of offence and recorded the statement of P. W. 1 and thereupon, P. W. 20, the Sub-Inspector of police, registered the same as the First information Report. On a consideration of the evidence as let in on behalf of the prosecution, the Court below acquitted all the accused mainly on the ground that p. W. 19, the Head Constable who recorded the statement of P. W. 1 at the earliest point of time in the Government Hospital, rampachodavaram in the presence of the medical Officers there, did not produce the statement of P. W. 1 even though he has produced the other statements, though according to the prosecution, Ex. P-1 is the first Information Report, which is stated to have been given to P. W. 18 at the scene of offence. Therefore, the suppression of the statement of P. W. 1 which is recorded by p. W. 19 is held to be fatal. The other statements recorded by P. W. 19 go to show that the injured received injuries at the hands of some unknown persons. Therefore, it was concluded that there is no clear evidence to show that cither the deceased or the other injured persons sustained injuries at the hands of the accused. The Court below also found that Ex. P-1 is a substituted one giving a different story. ( 10 ) ON a careful consideration of the evidence on record and the submissions made on either side, the crucial aspect is in regard to the earliest statement or information given by P. W. 1. There is no dispute that P. W. 18, who visited the scene of offence recorded the statement of P. W. 1 at 2. 00 p. m. According to P. W. 19, the head Constable, on receipt of information from the Government Hospital, rampachodavaram, he went to the Hospital arid recorded the statements of six persons viz. , P. Ws. 1 to 4,8 and one Somaraju, L. W. 6, who was not examined and he sent those statements to the police station. In fact, in the chief-Examination, he gives a reference to the inward number i. e. , vide Memo No. 15/ gen/1991, dated 14-5-1991. The statements of P. Ws. , P. Ws. 1 to 4,8 and one Somaraju, L. W. 6, who was not examined and he sent those statements to the police station. In fact, in the chief-Examination, he gives a reference to the inward number i. e. , vide Memo No. 15/ gen/1991, dated 14-5-1991. The statements of P. Ws. 2,3,4,8 and L. W. 6, Somaraju, were marked as Exs. P-31,32,33,34 and 35. It was stated by him that L. W. 5 Somaraju died. According to P. W. 21, the Inspector of Police, though he received the statements of the other witnesses, he did not receive the statement of P. W. 1, which was recorded by p. W. 19, the Head Constable, at the Hospital. On a reading of Ex. P-1, there is no doubt a reference to the accused and the injured. There are also specific overt acts referred to therein. Ex. P-1 was given at about 2. 00 p. m. and the case was registered as Cr. No. 28 of 1991 at about 3. 00 p. m. It was received by the court at 6. 00 p. m. Therefore, according to the learned Public Prosecutor, there is no reason to disbelieve the correctness of ex. P-1 and it cannot be said that Ex. P-1 is a substituted one. However, in the statements of P. Ws. 2 to 4 and 8, which have been recorded at the hospital by P. W. 19, no overt acts have been mentioned. Therefore, it is the contention of Sri Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused that there is a subtle variation in the story as set up by the prosecution in ex. P-1 with that of the statements of P. Ws. 2 to 4 and 8 recorded in the hospital. According to the learned Counsel, if the statement of P. W. 1, which is admittedly recorded by P. W. 19 at the hospital were to come before the Court, it would have given a complete unhindered picture. However, the same is sought to be suppressed only because the said statement did not tally with the prosecution case. Therefore, that was the reason why Ex. P-1 was got substituted by making an improvement. ( 11 ) IN the circumstances, the statement of p. W. 1 becomes very important in this case. However, the same is sought to be suppressed only because the said statement did not tally with the prosecution case. Therefore, that was the reason why Ex. P-1 was got substituted by making an improvement. ( 11 ) IN the circumstances, the statement of p. W. 1 becomes very important in this case. In his statement before the police, no doubt, p. W. 1 has spoken about the incident in detail with specific overt acts and also attributing the same to the accused individually. The statement recorded before the police authorities under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not a substantive evidence and cannot be admitted in evidence except for the purpose of confrontation as contemplated under section 162 proviso and under Section 145 of the Evidence Act. Section 162 Cr. P. C. , makes it amply clear that no such statement be used for any purpose. Therefore, from the angle of the accused, it becomes a very valuable document which is required to be supplied to the accused during the course of the trial so that the same can be used for confrontation in case of any contradictions. The prosecution is duty cast to the supply of documents to the accused concerned on which the prosecution relies including the statements recorded by the police authorities under Section 161 of the Cr. P. C. A right is conferred on the accused under section 145 of the Evidence Act for cross- examining a witness on the previous statements made by him which have been reduced into writing by the authorities and that right is a solemn one. That apart, in the process setting the criminal law in motion, the first information constitutes an important basic piece of evidence. Therefore, in this case, the question is as to whether Ex. P-1 is first in point of time or the other statement of P. W. I, which is recorded by P. W. 19 in the Government Hospital, which is not forthcoming before the Court. In the absence of any such circumstances, especially as to recording of statements once again, possibly there would not have been any doubt in regard to Ex. P-1. However, the fact remains that there is a serious contradiction in the evidence of P. Ws. In the absence of any such circumstances, especially as to recording of statements once again, possibly there would not have been any doubt in regard to Ex. P-1. However, the fact remains that there is a serious contradiction in the evidence of P. Ws. 19 and 21 - P. W. 19 asserting that he did record the statement of P. W. 1 at the hospital, though without the knowledge of his statement having already been recorded by P. W. 18 at the scene of offence at an earlier point of time and the same having been sent to the Police station along with the other statements by giving even the inward number and on the other hand, P. W. 21 the Investigating officer, stating that he did not receive the statement of P. W. 1. In these circumstances, the suppression of the later statement of p. W. 1, whether it is intentional or not, constitutes a serious lapse denying a valuable opportunity to the accused. The non-production of such statement, as rightly pointed out by the Court below, casts a serious doubt On the prosecution story more so when the other statements in Exs. P-31, p-32, P-33, P-34 and P-35 do not tally with ex. P-1. Accordingly, we hold that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the Court below has rightly acquitted the accused. We do not find any valid reason or justification to interfere with the finding of the Court below. ( 12 ) IN view of the above, there are no merits in the appeal and it is accordingly dismissed.