BILAL NAZKI J. ( 1 ) SIX accused were tried in Sessions Case no. 7 of 1999. A-l to A-4 and A-6 were charged for the offence u/s. 324 r/w 149ipc. All the accused were charged u/s. 326 r/w 149 IPC. A-2 and A-3 were also charged u/sec. 302 IPC. A-l, A-4 to A-6 were charged under Section 302 r/w 149 IPC. All the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution examined 11 witnesses and marked 15 documents. In defence 3 witnesses were examined. After trial, all the accused were acquitted by the trial court. The State filed this appeal against acquittal. When this appeal came up for admission, while admitting the appeal on 17-10-2001 the Court passed the following order:"heard learned Public Prosecutor. Appeal is admitted as far as accused 1,2 and 3 are concerned. The appeal is dismissed as far as accused 4,5 and 6 are concerned. The learned III Additional sessions Judge, Tirupati is directed to take action against accused 1, 2 and 3 under Section 390 Cr. P. C. "in view of this order, we are concerned with the judgment acquitting the accused 1 to 3 alone. Various persons who were injured had been presented as witnesses before the trial court One person had died, therefore a charge under Section 302 IPC and also 302 r/w 149 IPC was also framed. Since all the accused persons were acquitted by the trial court and appeal as regards accused 4 to 6 has been dismissed and it was the specific case of the prosecution that A-l to A-6 committed the offence, therefore, charge against the remaining accused i. e. , A-l to a-3 u/s. 149 IPC can also be not looked into. The learned Public Prosecutor, however, submitted that, even three persons could be charged for offence u/s. 149 IPC if it was shown that these three persons were members of unlawful assembly and there were some others who were not identifiable. That may be true but, we are not going into that question at present because it was not the case of the prosecution that three of the accused were members of unlawful assembly where there were some other persons as well. The specific case of the prosecution was that accused Nos. 1 to 6 were members of the unlawful assembly. That may be true but, we are not going into that question at present because it was not the case of the prosecution that three of the accused were members of unlawful assembly where there were some other persons as well. The specific case of the prosecution was that accused Nos. 1 to 6 were members of the unlawful assembly. Since three of them were acquitted and appeal against their acquittal has been dismissed, therefore, we do not think that the remaining three accused could be convicted u/s. 149 IPC. Therefore, we are not dealing with that charge. ( 2 ) BEFORE coming to the other charges, let us give a brief resume of facts which necessitated filing of the charge-sheet. It was claimed that there was a tamarind tree on the boundary of ridge between the land of chinnakkagiri Nagi Reddy (A-l) and Obul reddy. This tree was the bone of contention between the two. A panchayat was held in the month of February, 1995 where it was decided that A-l and Obul Reddy should take usufruct in turn one after the other. During the year 1995 A-l should take the fruit and in the next year i. e. , in 1996 Obul reddy should harvest the fruit. A-2 and A-3 are sons of A-l, A-4is wife of A-l. They were all residents of Cheekatipalle H/o Parapatla village. A-5 and A-6 were residents of kuravapalle H/o. Parapatla village. A-5 and a-6 are brothers in between themselves and both of them are brothers-in-law of A-l. A. Nagaratnamma (deceased) is younger sister of A-l. The said Nagaratnamma was killed during the occurrence. On 16-2-96 at about 5. 30 p. m. the accused 1 to 6 began to harvest the usufruct of tamarind, at that time Obul reddy, Venugopal Reddy, Anasuyamma and deceased Nagaratnamma were preparing their land to transplant tomato plantation in their fields. They saw the accused harvesting the fruit of the tamarind tree. Venugopal Reddy objected. Then A-5 brought -sticks, which were kept ready anticipating the objection, and instigated the accused persons to kill Obul Reddy and others. A-2 beat Venugopal Reddy with stick on head. A-3 beat Venugopal Reddy with stick on right forearm causing incised injury and A-6 beat Venugopal Reddy with stick on back on right side. Obul Reddy and anasuyamma went in rescue of Venugopal reddy. A-2 beat Venugopal Reddy with stick on head. A-3 beat Venugopal Reddy with stick on right forearm causing incised injury and A-6 beat Venugopal Reddy with stick on back on right side. Obul Reddy and anasuyamma went in rescue of Venugopal reddy. Then A-3 beat Obul Reddy on his right shoulder causing fracture of collarbone. A-l beat Obul Reddy twice with stick on head. A-6 beat him with stick, A-4 beat anasuyamma with stick on her head. A-4 beat Anasuyamma with stick on left hand. Deceased Nagaratnamma intervened when venugopal Reddy was being beaten. A-2 and A-3 beat her with sticks on her head and caused severe bleeding injuries. She fell down unconscious, she was shifted to Community hospital, Vayalpad and then to SVRR hospital, Tirupati. During the course of treatment she succumbed to injuries on 17-2-96. A-l, A-3 and A-4 also sustained injuries in the same incident. On these facts charge-sheet was filed. ( 3 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor took us through the evidence and record of the case and submitted that there was sufficient eye- witness account which had conclusively proved the guilt of the accused and overt acts were specifically attributed to Accused 1 to 3, therefore their acquittal under Section 302 and 326 was not reasonable. On the other hand the learned Senior counsel mr. Padmanabha Reddy has drawn our attention to the fact that, this was a case where admittedly two of the innocent persons i. e. , accused Nos. 5 and 6 were implicated falsely which is established by the evidence therefore the whole case must be thrown out and no credence should be placed on the testimony of the so-called eye-witnesses who implicated the innocent persons in order to take revenge over a dispute on a tamarind tree. ( 4 ) WE will not be going through the whole of the evidence but in order to appreciate the argument of Mr. Padmanabha Reddy, we will go to the relevant portions of the evidence of the witnesses who are projected as eye- witnesses. ( 5 ) P. W. 1 is projected as an eye-witness. He gave the detailed account of what had happened and also said:"while we were working in our land at about 5. 00 p. m. A-l to A-6 came there, a-3 climbed the tamarind tree and started plucking tamarind. ( 5 ) P. W. 1 is projected as an eye-witness. He gave the detailed account of what had happened and also said:"while we were working in our land at about 5. 00 p. m. A-l to A-6 came there, a-3 climbed the tamarind tree and started plucking tamarind. My son Venugopal reddy objected and told them that as per the decision of the elders since they enjoyed the usufruct during the year (i. e. , 1955) and this year (1996) we have to take the usufruct. Then A-l, A-2, and a-6 started beating my son Venugopal reddy. While we were objecting A-5 went and brought some sticks and started that they should not spare Venugopal reddy and that he should be killed. A-5 also instigated the other accused to kill all of us". A-l beat with a stick on my head, and sustained bleeding injury on my head. A-6 beat with a stick on my left upper arm. A-l to A-6 beat Venugopal Reddy, venugopal Reddy sustained grievous injury onhis head, and on his righthand. " ( 6 ) P. W. 2 is also projected as an eye- witness. Among other things he said; "onl6-2-96atabout5. 00p. m. P. W. l,my mother Anasuya and my aunt nagarathnamma and I were working under the tamarind tree leveling the land to plant tomato plants. Then A-l to A-6 came there. A-3 climbed the tamarind tree and started plucking tamarind. It is not true to suggest that A-5 was in kalikiri police station to meet the S. I. and that he was seen in the police station by the Ex-Sarpanch of Kaliki and rangareddigari Venkataramana Reddy of Narravandlapalle were in the company of Kalikiri till 6. 00 or 6. 30 p. m. on that day. P. W. 3 another projected eye-witness stated; a-5 brought some sticks from a nearby well and instigated the accused to beat us. Then all the accused attacked us and beat us. When P. W. 2 was beaten, I went to rescue him. A-4 beat me with a stick on my head. A-6 beat on my left hand with a stick. While P. W. 2 was again being beaten the deceased went to rescue him. A-2 and A-3 beat with sticks on the head of the deceased. When P. W. 2 was beaten, I went to rescue him. A-4 beat me with a stick on my head. A-6 beat on my left hand with a stick. While P. W. 2 was again being beaten the deceased went to rescue him. A-2 and A-3 beat with sticks on the head of the deceased. It is not true to suggest that A-5 and A-6 were not at the scene of offence in our village on the date of incident and that a-5 was at Kalikiri and that A-6 was at buddireddigarpalle of Nimmanapalle mandal. It is not true to suggest that A-6 was with one Venkata Reddy, Ex- sarpanch of Mutturu and that A-6 returned home only on 17-2-96. P. W. 4 stated; at about 5. 30 p. m. , we heard some gala ta and after some time the cries. Then we both of us went towards the scene of offence which is in the land of P. W. 1 saw p. W. 1, P. W. 2, P. W. 3 with bleeding injuries and the deceased had fallen on the ground. Meanwhile Chandrasekhar reddy and Somanadha Reddy had arrived there. I saw A-l to A-6 proceeding towards Cheekatipalle village. It is not true to suggest that A-5 and A-6 were not at the scene of offence and that they were at different places and that I did not see them going away from the scene of offence and that I am deposing falsely at the instance of P. W. 1. P. W. 5 stated: "i saw A-l to A-6 running away from the scene of offence towards Cheekatipalle. " the other witnesses are not relevant for the purpose of appreciating the argument made by the learned Senior counsel. The learned senior counsel submits that the investigating officer had come to a conclusion during the investigation that Accused 5 and 6 were not in the village on that day and they were not at the place of occurrence. He submits that this is a case which is of deliberate implicating of some of the innocent persons as accused and in this process all the so called eye- witnesses and the Investigating Officer are parties, therefore the whole evidence of all those so called eye-witnesses becomes doubtful. The learned Public Prosecutor, however, submits that it is duty of the Court to separate grain from the chaff and truth from falsehood. The learned Public Prosecutor, however, submits that it is duty of the Court to separate grain from the chaff and truth from falsehood. Even if it is believed that eye-witnesses deliberately tried to implicate some of the accused that should not deter the court from believing their evidence with respect to those accused who participated in the offence. On the question of principle we have no quarrel that the Courts are supposed to separate truth from falsehood from the statements of the witnesses and weigh the evidence on the basis of settled principles of law but at the same time we feel that in a situation like this where the Investigating agency itself was confident that some of the accused were not involved in the crime and were not at all at the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence but they still go on projecting such persons as accused, it is a case of different nature. It shows that the investigating agency and the so called eye- witnesses were hand in glove, therefore the credibility of such witnesses becomes highly doubtful. In order to appreciate the controversy let us have a look at the statement of the Investigating Officer. P. W. 10 is one of the Investigating Officers. He stated that,"it is not true to suggest that A-5 and a-6 were falsely implicated in this case due to political pressure. "p. W. 11 who is Inspector of Police who conducted final investigation in the matter stated that he had investigated the matter and took up the investigation from P. W. 10 and he visited the Government hospital, vayalpad and examined the injured witnesses P. Ws. 1 to 3. Then in his cross- examination he stated that;"it is not true to suggest that it is also mentioned in C. D. file that innocent persons are also falsely implicated in this case. It is not true to suggest that due to political pressure we have falsely implicated A-5 and A-6 in the case. "then he said;"it is also true that I also enquired r. Bhaskar Reddy, Ex-Sarpanch of kalikiri and Venkatramana Reddy of nallavaripalle and they supported the version of A-5. I do not remember whether I have recorded the statements or not. "then he said;"it is also true that I also enquired r. Bhaskar Reddy, Ex-Sarpanch of kalikiri and Venkatramana Reddy of nallavaripalle and they supported the version of A-5. I do not remember whether I have recorded the statements or not. Their statements are not available in the C. D. It is true that the same advocate filed a petition on behalf of A-6 on 18-4-96 stating that A-6 was not in the scene of offence and he was in some other village at the time of incident. It is true that it is mentioned in the alleged petition of A-6 that he was with Venkat reddy s/o. Krishna Reddy and Janga venkataramana Reddy Ex-Sarpanch of mutturu village on 16-2-96, and that he returned home on 17-2-96. It is also enquired with those persons along with whom A-6 was said to be at the time of occurrence. I do not remember whether i recorded their statements or not. I cannot say whether I ha ve sent a petition to the S. P. giving all particulars of investigation and seeking his directions to delete the names of A-5 and A-6. Witness volunteers that he might have sent a report, but he does not remember. "the petitions filed on behalf of A-5 and a-6 are not with me and they are not with C. D. file. Similarly the conclusion reached by me after enquiring into those petitions, are not with me, at present I am also not available in the C. D. at present. If require I can produce those records. We noticed two injuries during inquest on head of the deceased. It is not true to suggest that A-5 and A-6 are falsely implicated in this case at the instance of congress-I leaders. " it is true that I have submitted a report to the Superintendent of Police in this regard and sought permission to delete the names of A-5 and A-6. Witness volunteers that it is a confidential report. My enquiry reveals that the presence of A-5 and A-6 at the scene of offence as appears to be doubtful. "we have narrated the relevant portions of the statements of so called eye-witnesses. They all said that A-5 and A-6 were at the scene of occurrence and participated in the commission of offence. The Investigating officer s investigation revealed that A-5 and a-6 were not at all at the scene of occurrence. "we have narrated the relevant portions of the statements of so called eye-witnesses. They all said that A-5 and A-6 were at the scene of occurrence and participated in the commission of offence. The Investigating officer s investigation revealed that A-5 and a-6 were not at all at the scene of occurrence. This is further substantiated by the evidence of defence witnesses who were cross- examined by the prosecution. Therefore, this was a case where, in our view, we are not required to separate truth from falsehood. This is a clear case of deliberate implication of innocent persons in an offence to which the Investigating Officer and also the eye- witnesses are parties. Therefore, in our view, it is not safe to rely on the evidence of these witnesses, as far as, even other accused are concerned. We are fortified in our view by the judgment of Supreme Court in Dharam singh v. State of Punjab1in this regard. In this case, the Court came to the conclusion that one of the accused had been falsely implicated in the offence, that accused had taken defence of alibi and proved it which was accepted by the Supreme Court, thereafter the Supreme court held;"therefore, in our view A-l has been falsely implicated. This false implication again affects the veracity of the alleged eye-witnesses. It only show that they being interested witnesses were bent upon to implicate A-l who had some dispute with the deceased family. From the evidence of P. W. 22 it appears that he was also inimical towards A-l and A-2 and admittedly he was with P. W. 18 throughout and particularly at the time of giving the FIR before the police. "another judgment on which reliance was placed is Malempati Pattabi Narandra v. Ghattamaneni Maruthi Prasad. There were four accused in this case and there were eye- witnesses who stated that they had seen all the four accused at the place of occurrence. They also stated that A-4 had given axe blows on the deceased but it was proved during the trial that A-4 was in jail on the day when the occurrence took place. In para 11 the Supreme Court noted;"though to be interned in jail is a misfortune, it became a blessing to A-4. If he was not then in jail, what would have been the disastrous consequences for him. In para 11 the Supreme Court noted;"though to be interned in jail is a misfortune, it became a blessing to A-4. If he was not then in jail, what would have been the disastrous consequences for him. We have no doubt that P. W. 1 would certainly have struck to his version regarding A-4 s role in the same manner as he gave in his written complaint. "p. W. 1 in that case had not stated in the Court anything against A-4 but he had implicated him only in FIR whereas in the present case the eye-witnesses P. Ws. 1 to 5 have implicated a-5 and A-6 both in the FIR as well as in the statement made before the Court. The supreme Court then said;"if the Court had believed P. W. 1, in that situation A-4 would have been convicted of the offence under Section 302 IPC. Now, we have no manner of doubt that p. W s present version, that he identified an assailant having close resemblance with A-4 is nothing but a canard concocted for the purpose of escaping from the charge of a rank perjury. " ( 7 ) SINCE there was no mistake and it was a deliberate attempt to implicate atleast accused 5 and 6 therefore the credibility and veracity of the statements made by P. Ws. 1 to 5 and the Investigating Officer cannot, in our view, be accepted. The role of the police and the Investigating Officer in this case has been most unfortunate. It is the duty of the investigating agency to bring before the courts the accused persons and see that justice is done, but it is equally the duty of the investigating officers to see that no innocent person is implicated in an offence. The investigating agencies can also commit mistakes and those can be pardoned. Once the Investigating agency comes to a conclusion that a particular person is innocent person but still implicates in a charge like charge of murder, it is not pardonable. Although the Investigating agency knew that atleast two of the accused were innocent still they prefer a charge-sheet against them which shows that there was a hidden hand at work at whose instance the prosecuting agency was working along with the projected eye- witnesses. Although the Investigating agency knew that atleast two of the accused were innocent still they prefer a charge-sheet against them which shows that there was a hidden hand at work at whose instance the prosecuting agency was working along with the projected eye- witnesses. In these circumstances, it could be dangerous to rely on the evidence of the so called eye-witnesses even for other accused. ( 8 ) WITH these observations, we dismiss the appeal.