K. C. BHANU, J. ( 1 ) A-L, A-2, A-5 to A-8 in Sessions Case no. 126/1999 on the file of I Additional sessions Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam, filed Crl. A. No. 1591/2001, while A-3 and a-4 filed Crl. A. No. 796/2002, aggrieved by the judgment, dated 1-10-2001. By the impugned judgment the learned Sessions judge convicted the accused, and sentenced a-l to A-8 to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months with a fine of Rs. 500/- each in default of payment of which to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days under Section 148 ipc, A-l to A-8 to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year with a fine of rs. 500/- each in default of payment of which to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days under Section 324 IPC, A-l and A-3 to suffer imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 500/- each in default of payment of which to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month under section 302 IPC, and A-2, A-4 to A-8 to suffer imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 500/- each in default of payment of which to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days under section 302 read with Section 149 IPC, with a direction to run the substantive sentences concurrently. ( 2 ) P. WS. 1 and 2 are brothers of the deceased and P. W. 4 is the father of the deceased. All the accused are related to each other. P. W. 4 was the Sarpanch of the village of which A-2 was the member of the panchayat. There were disputes between them with regard to the construction of an overhead tank in the village. On 24-12-1998, a Surveyor visited the village for taking measurements of the tank. In that connection, an altercation took place between P. W. 4 and a-l. On 25-12-1998 at about 7. 00 p. m. , P. W. 1 went to Church along with P. W. 2. On the eve of Christmas, a film was to be screened in the Church. A mike with speakers was arranged in the Church on that occasion. By the time P. Ws. 1 and 2 went to the Church, screening of the film had not yet begun. Therefore, P. W. 1 requested A-l to give the mouthpiece of the mike to P. W. 2 so that the latter would sing a sing in the meanwhile. A mike with speakers was arranged in the Church on that occasion. By the time P. Ws. 1 and 2 went to the Church, screening of the film had not yet begun. Therefore, P. W. 1 requested A-l to give the mouthpiece of the mike to P. W. 2 so that the latter would sing a sing in the meanwhile. A-l did not accept the request of A-l. A-l and A-3 fisted P. W. 2 on his chest and pushed him forcibly. As they did not want to further the trouble, P. Ws. 1 and 2 returned their home. They and the deceased were discussing the incident that had taken place in the church. A-l to A-8 came there armed with sticks and sticks and attacked them. A-l, a-2, A-5, A-8 and A-7 attacked P. W. 1. P. W. 3 tried to rescue him. A-2, A-7, A-3 and A-4 beat P. W. 3. Then P. W. 2 intervened. A-3 and a-7 beat P. W. 2 too. Therefore, the deceased tried to rescue them. A-l and A-3 hacked him. Then the deceased ran away. A-l to A-8 chased him and attacked him. As the accused felt that the deceased died, they left the scene of occurrence. P. W. 1 lodged a report with the pol; e. P. W. 10 registered a case. P. W. 11 took up investigation. He observed the scene of occurrence, drafted rough sketch thereof, got the dead body photographed, conducted inquest over the dead body, sent the dead body for conducting post-mortem examination, and after completion of investigation of usual investigation, he filed a charge-sheet. Six charges were framed against the accused. They pleaded not guilty. To support its case, Prosecution examined 12 witnesses and marked 33 documents, besides m. Os. 1 to 19-case properties. The defence marked Exs. D-1 to D-10. On appreciation of the evidence on record, the trial court convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid, questioning the legality of which the accused preferred the present appeals as stated above. ( 3 ) LEARNED senior counsel for appellants in Crl. A. No. 1591/2001 and the learned counsel appointed by the Legal Services appearing for the appellants in Crl. A. No. 796/2002 contended that the interested testimony of P. Ws. ( 3 ) LEARNED senior counsel for appellants in Crl. A. No. 1591/2001 and the learned counsel appointed by the Legal Services appearing for the appellants in Crl. A. No. 796/2002 contended that the interested testimony of P. Ws. 1,2 and 4 cannot be relied upon, that though the incident was witnessed by several independent witnesses, not even a single independent witness was examined, that the circumstances indicate that the manner of incident as spoken to by prosecution witnesses was not the actual incident that had taken place, that in the same transaction, A-l, A-4 and A-6 sustained injuries which was not explained by the prosecution, that on a report given by the injured accused a report was lodged by the police against P. Ws. 1,2 and 4, that the time of offence and the manner of assault in both the cases was the same, that there was delay in lodging the F. I. R. in the present case and also reaching the FIR to the Magistrate s court, that these aspects indicate that the fir was brought into existence after due deliberations, that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses would disclose that the incident took place while P. Ws. 1,2 and 4 were taking dinner, but the post-mortem doctor found 500 gms. Of partly digested food, that it was the Prosecution witnesses who attacked A-l and his party while A-l was going to his house, and that there were so many improvements and contradictions in the evidence of P. Ws. 1,2 and 4, and so the order of conviction and sentence should be set aside. On the other hand, learned Public prosecutor contended that the incident in question took place in front of the house of p. W. 4, and therefore P. Ws. 1,2 and 4 were natural witnesses to be present there, that p. Ws. 1,2 and 4, and so the order of conviction and sentence should be set aside. On the other hand, learned Public prosecutor contended that the incident in question took place in front of the house of p. W. 4, and therefore P. Ws. 1,2 and 4 were natural witnesses to be present there, that p. Ws. 3 and 5 are independent witnesses, but unfortunately they did not support the prosecution case, that to some extent their evidence which inspires confidence of the court can be taken into consideration to corroborate the evidence of the other witnesses, that due to the fear of the accused p. W. 1 did not go to the police station immediately and the delay in lodging the fir was explained properly, that the delay in reaching the FIR to the Magistrate s Court is not per se fatal to the case of the Prosecution, that the contradictions and improvements had occurred due to the lapse of time which do not affect the substratum of the main prosecution case, and therefore the appeal should be dismissed. ( 4 ) P. W. 9 is one of the inquest mediators present when inquest was conducted by p. W. 12. The inquest mediators opined that the deceased died as a result of the injuries sustained by him. It has been suggested to this witness that the inquest was not held as stated in Ex. P-20 inquest report and that. Ex. P-20 was prepared in the police station, but the same has been denied. P. W. 12 also deposed about the fact that the inquest was conducted. P. W. 11 is the Doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and found a chopped injury of 4" x 4" on the back of left elbow and upper] /4th of the left lower arm, and an incised elliptical injury obliquely 2" x 2" x 5" deep on the right side of the back below the right shoulder blade with injury of the inter costal muscles of the region and on cut section injuring the liver on the posterior, lateral aspect of liver and lower margins with 1" x 1" x 2" depth. He stated that the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and the stomach contained 500 gms of partially digested rice. He stated that the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and the stomach contained 500 gms of partially digested rice. He opined that the deceased died as a result of shock and haemorrhage due to the injury to vital organs. He issued Ex. P-29-post-mortem certificate. Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of these witnesses to discredit their testimony with regard to the cause of death. Therefore, the Prosecution has established that the case of death of the deceased was homicidal. ( 5 ) IT has now to be seen whether the accused are assailants of the deceased. ( 6 ) SINCE the scene of occurrence is in dispute, before adverting to the evidence of prosecution witnesses on the main incident, we would assess the evidence on this aspect. P. W. 9 is one of the mediators for the scene of observation. He stated that P. W. 12 observed the scene of occurrence in his presence. The dead body was found lying on the North- east corner at the house of P. W. 4 at the well. He further stated that bloodstained marks were found on the earth from the road margin to the dead body. The police seized the bloodstained and control earth. They also seized bloodstained Hawai chappals, upper portion of grinder and stone. The police got the scene of occurrence photographed. Ex. P-19 is the observation report. He admitted in the cross-examination that the police did not seize the other bloodstained earth noticed near the scene of occurrence besides the bloodstained earth seized by the police from the scene to the dead body. According to the Prosecution witnesses, the deceased was dragged to the other side of the road in front of the house of P. W. 4 and i attacked him. Thereafter the deceased ran towards south. P. W. 9 did not specifically state that bloodstained earth was seized in front of the house of P. W. 4. He stated that i near the dead body the bloodstained earth was seized. P. W. 12 is the Inspector of Police. He did not state that he seized bloodstained earth either at the scene of occurrence or at the place where the dead body was lying. He stated that the scene of occurrence is as mentioned in Ex. P-19. He stated that i near the dead body the bloodstained earth was seized. P. W. 12 is the Inspector of Police. He did not state that he seized bloodstained earth either at the scene of occurrence or at the place where the dead body was lying. He stated that the scene of occurrence is as mentioned in Ex. P-19. In the cross- examination he admitted that he had taken bloodstained earth at one place at the scene of occurrence and according to his investigation, the place of occurrence and according to his investigation, the place of occurrence was in front of the house of Chinna nageswara Rao. As seen from Ex. P-19, bloodstained earth and control earth were seized near the scene of occurrence i. e. , in front of the house of Chinnam Nageswara rao. The bloodstained earth, Hawai chappals, stone piece which were allegedly seized from the scene of occurrence did not contain human blood as per Ex. P-33 chemical analysis report. It would be a different matter if no bloodstains had been detected at the scene of occurrence because the place was walked over by several people. It is the specific case of the Prosecution that bloodstains were found at the scene of occurrence. The alleged bloodstained objects did not contain human blood. Therefore, the prosecution has not come forward with the true version as regards the place of incident. ( 7 ) COMING to the evidence of P. Ws. 1, 2 and 4, they are closely related. P. Ws. 1 and 2 are brothers of the deceased and P. W. 4 is their father. P. W. 4 was Sarpanch of Jinjeru village and A-2 was the Member of the panchayat. A-l and A-2 are brothers. A-3 and A-4 are brothers. A-6 is the brother s son of A-7 and A-8 is the son of A-5. A-3 and a-4 are nephews of A-6 and A-7. All the accused are thus closely inter-related. The motive according to the Prosecution was that there were disputes between P. Ws. 1 and 4 and A-l with regard to the construction of the overhead tank in the village. With a view that he should not get good name A-l objected to the taldng of measurements of the tank by the Surveyor. P. W. 4 requested A-l to extend his co-operation for the construction of the tank, but A-l bluntly refused. 1 and 4 and A-l with regard to the construction of the overhead tank in the village. With a view that he should not get good name A-l objected to the taldng of measurements of the tank by the Surveyor. P. W. 4 requested A-l to extend his co-operation for the construction of the tank, but A-l bluntly refused. P. W. 6 was examined to show that the land in which the overhead tank was proposed to be constructed was "pramboke" land which was occupied by encroachers and the encroachers made objection to the fixation of boundaries. He did not specifically state that a-l objected P. W. 4 and others for doing so. On the other hand, he specifically stated that the encroachers made such objections. Therefore, the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 4 on this aspect cannot be accepted as true. If really A-l was present at that time and objected to the taking of the measurements and fixation of the boundaries, P. W. 6, who was the Mandal Surveyor of Pedanna village, would have spoken to about the presence of a-l at that time and the objections made by him. It is not the case of the Prosecution that a-l was supporting the encroachers of the land. Therefore, it appears that a feeble attempt has been made by the Prosecution to show that there were disputes between A-l and P. W. 4. ( 8 ) ON 25-12-1998 at about 7 p. m. , P. W. 1 went to the Church along with P. W. 2 to see the picture. The screening of the picture had not begun. Therefore, P. W. 1 requested his brother to sing a song as he was a good singer. At that time, the mouthpiece of the mike was with A-l. P. W. 2 requested A-l to give the mouthpiece to P. W. 1. A-l and A-3 abused him and violently fisted him on his chest and pushed him. Suspecting that a "galata" might take place, P. W. 1 took his brother to his house. P. W. 2 also stated in the same lines. According to P. Ws. 1 and 2, this is the motive for the accused to attack them. A-l and A-3 abused him and violently fisted him on his chest and pushed him. Suspecting that a "galata" might take place, P. W. 1 took his brother to his house. P. W. 2 also stated in the same lines. According to P. Ws. 1 and 2, this is the motive for the accused to attack them. It is not their case that they caused injuries to any one of the accused, much less A-l and a-3, or that they used abusive language provoking the accused to take revenge against them. On the other hand, A-l and a-3 fisted P. W. 2 on his chest and pushed him, but without raising any protest, P. Ws. 1 and 2 returned their home. Therefore, there appears no motive for the accused to do away with the life of the deceased. ( 9 ) THOUGH the Prosecution has not been able to prove motive, but failure of the prosecution to prove motive is not a ground to disbelieve the evidence of Prosecution witnesses, if otherwise found true and reliable. This is the settled law. P. Ws. 1,2 and 4 are eyewitnesses to the incident. It is their case that at about 8 p. m. on 25-12-1998, while they were taking food in front of their house, all the accused armed with sticks, knives attacked them. P. W. 1 attributed overt acts against A-l, A-2, A-4, A-5, A-7 and A-8 for causing injuries to him, A-2 to A-4 and A-7 for causing injuries to P. W. 4 with sticks, and a-3 and A-7 for causing injuries to P. W. 2. He also stated that A-l hacked the deceased on the left hand as result of which the deceased lost his hand. A-l again hacked on the left back above the left waist and A-3 hacked on the right shoulder blade. When the accused ran towards the house of Mamidi bhujangarao and others, all the accused chased him. P. W. 2 attributed specific overt acts to A-2, A-5, A-6 and A-8 for causing injuries to P. W. 1, to A-3, A-2 to A-4 and a-7 for causing injuries to P. W. 4, to A-3 and a-6 for attacking him with sticks. When the accused ran towards the house of Mamidi bhujangarao and others, all the accused chased him. P. W. 2 attributed specific overt acts to A-2, A-5, A-6 and A-8 for causing injuries to P. W. 1, to A-3, A-2 to A-4 and a-7 for causing injuries to P. W. 4, to A-3 and a-6 for attacking him with sticks. In so far as the deceased is concerned, according to him, a-l hacked him on the left hand twice, A-l again hacked him on the left waist, and A-3 hacked on the back side of the chest. P. W. 4 is another eyewitness to the incident who is the father of the deceased. He attributed overt acts against A-l to A-4 for causing injuries to P. W. 1, against A-4 and A-6 for beating P. W. 2. According to this witness, a-l hacked the deceased with a knife on his hand and also on the left waist. A-3 pulled a knife from his waist and hacked the deceased on the right side of the back waist. ( 10 ) AS seen from the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2, certain improvements were made. P. W. 12 admitted that P. W. 1 stated before him as in Ex. D-1 which reads as follows:"i was caused by Pentayya with a knife on my left abdomen, Judula Amu with a stick on my head, Bapatla Venkateswara rao with a stick on my right chest, Jaldula ramu with a stick on my right shoulder. Bapatla Subba Rao with a stick on my mouth below the lower lip, Ramesh with a stone on my left hand. " ( 11 ) P. W. 12 admitted that P. W. 1 did not state before him that A-2, A-3, A-6 and A-7 beat his father, P. W. 4, with sticks on his left hand and all over the body, that A-6 beat his father, that A-3 and A-6 beat P. W. 2 on his head and left shoulder, and that P. Ws. 3 and 5 informed him that the accused left the temple and advised him to go to the police station. P. W. 12 also admitted that P. W. 2 did not state before him that P. Ws. 3 and 5 informed him that the accused left the temple and advised him to go to the police station. P. W. 12 also admitted that P. W. 2 did not state before him that P. Ws. 3 and 5 advised them to go to the police station, that they left pedana at 11 p. m. after the incident, that a-6 beat P. W. 1, A-2 beat P. W. 4 on his right shoulder, A-7 beat P. W. 4 on his back, A-3 beat his father on his hand and caused fracture, that A-l beat P. W. 4 on the right shoulder, that A-6 beat his father on his left shoulder, or that A-l and A-3 fisted him on his chest at the Church. P. W. 12 admitted that P. W. 2 stated before him as in Ex. D-7 reading "after midnight they went to the police station". P. W. 12 further admitted that p. W. 3 did not state before him that after the incident, he went to the house of P. W. 4 and found the dead body, that he advised p. Ws. 2 and 4 to go to the hospital for treatment, and that there was a tube light burning at the house of P. W. 4. Certain improvements were also elicited from the evidence of P. W. 4 to the effect that he did not state before P. W. 12 that P. Ws. 3 and 5 came to his house at about 1 or 1. 30 hours in the night, that after the incident he went to the police station, that A-l hacked P. W. 1 on his back above the waist on the left side, that a-3 beat P. W. 3 on his head with a stick, on the left fore arm, and that A-3 and A-6 beat p. W. 2 on his head with sticks and A-6 beat p. W. 2 on his right collar bone. On the aspect of improvements, it is pertinent to refer to a decision in Rizan v. State of Chattisgarh1 in which the Apex Court has held as follows:"as observed by this Court in State of rajasthan v. Kalki ( (1981) 2 SCC 752 ) normal discrepancies in evidence are those which are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence and those are always there, however honest and truthful a witness may be. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal, and not expected of a normal person. Courts have to label the category into which a discrepancy may be categorized. While normal discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of a party s case, material discrepancies do so. " ( 12 ) THE improvements as stated above, in our opinion, have been made purposely by the Prosecution in order to rope in all the accused in the case. The sequence of events as stated by P. W. 1 is entirely different from the recitals in Ex. P-1. Because P. W. 1 stated that in the first instance some of the accused beat him, then P. W. 4 intervened who was beaten, then P. W. 2 intervened who was also beaten, and then the deceased intervened and he too was beaten, whereas in Ex. P-1 it has been stated that in the first instance, some of the accused attacked P. W. 1 and at that time the deceased intervened and some of the accused caused injuries to him and it is only thereafter P. Ws. 2 and 4 intervened and then the accused beat them. If really the incident as spoken to by this witness happened, this discrepancy would not have arisen. ( 13 ) P. W. 7 examined A-l on 25-12-1998 at 9. 50 p. m. and found incised wounds of 2" x 2" muscle deep over lower third of left forearm; V2" x V8" x skin deep over back of left hand; a red contusion 2" x 1" over dorsum of left hand; a red abrasion 1x1 cm over back of left middle finger; an incised wound 1" x V2" x bond deep over scalp on occipital region; a red contusion of 1" x 1" over back of middle third of right forearm. He opined that these injuries were simple in nature. He also examined A-4 to 9 p. m. and found an incised wound of 3" x 1 x bone deep over scalp on left parietal region and a red contusion 1" x 1" over left wrist. According to him, these injuries are simple in nature. He also examined A-6 at about 10. 15 p. m. and found an incised wound of 3" x 2" muscle deep over back of right leg and a red abrasion of 1" x V2" over left arm. P. Ws. 1 and 4 admitted that A-l, A-4 and A-6 might have sustained injuries at the time of occurrence. P. W. 1 stated that neither he, nor his father nor the deceased was armed with weapons at the time of the offence. He specifically admitted that he did not cause injuries to the injured accused. P. W. 2 admitted that he did not know if A-l, A-4 and A-6 sustained injuries at the time of occurrence. He also stated that they were not armed at the time of the occurrence. P. W. 10 is the Sub-Inspector who registered a case in crime No. 133/1998 against P. Ws. 1,2 and 4 on a report lodged by a-l. He admitted that the time, date and place mentioned in this report as well as the report lodged in the present case are one and the same, whereas P. W. 12, after going through the C. D. file in crime No. 133/1998, admitted that it was mentioned therein that in the same incident, A-l, A-4 and A-6 received injuries. Therefore, it is clear that these injured accused sustained injuries in the same transaction. The Prosecution has not explained these injuries. ( 14 ) IN the case of The State of Gujarat v. Bai fatima2, it was said that when the prosecution fails to explain the injuries on the person of an accused, depending on the facts of each case, any of the three results may follow:- " (1) That the accused had inflicted the injuries on the members of the prosecution party in exercise of the right of self defence. (2) It makes the prosecution version of the occurrence doubtful and the charge against the accused cannot be held to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. (3) It does not affect the prosecution case at all. (2) It makes the prosecution version of the occurrence doubtful and the charge against the accused cannot be held to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. (3) It does not affect the prosecution case at all. The aforesaid three inferences drawn on basis of the nature of injuries were reiterated in the case of Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar, ( AIR 1976 SC 2263 ), and it was further observed:- "it seems to us that in a murder case, the non explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused at about the time of the occurrence or in the course of altercation is a very important circumstance from which the Court can draw the following inferences: (1) that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has thus notpresented the true version; (2) that the witnesses who have denied the presence of the injuries on the person of the accused are lying on a most material point and therefore their evidence is unreliable; (3) that in case there is a defence version which explains the injuries on the person of the accused it is rendered probable so as to throw doubt on the prosecution case The omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of the accused assumes much greater importance where the evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses or where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution one. A three-Judge Bench in yet another case of Bliaba Nanda Sarma v. The State of Assam, ( AIR 1977 SC 2252 ), said:-"the prosecution is not obliged to explain the injuries on the person of an accused in all cases and in all circumstances. This is not the law. It all depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether the prosecution case becomes reasonably doubtful for its failure to explain the injuries on the accused. "in the case of Hare Krishna Singh v. State of Bihar, ( AIR 1988 SC 863 ), it was said:"if the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution are believed by the Court in proof of the guiltof the accused beyond any reasonable doubt, the question of the obligation of the prosecution to explain the injuries sustained by the accused will not arise. When the prosecution comes with a definite case that the offence has been committed by the accused and proves its case beyond any reasonable doubt, it becomes hardly necessary for the prosecution to again explain how and in what circumstances injuries have been inflicted on the person of the accused. "but in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Madho, ( AIR 1991 SC 1065 ). , it was held:"if the prosecution witnesses shy away from the reality and do not explain the injuries caused to the respondents herein it casts a doubt on the genesis of the prosecution case since the evidence shows that these injuries were sustained in the course of the same incident. It gives the impression that the witnesses are suppressing some part of the incident. The High Court was, therefore, of the opinion that having regard to the fact that they have failed to explain the injuries sustained by the two respondents in the course of the same transaction, the respondents were entitled to the benefit of the doubt. " ( 15 ) IN Ram Sunder Yadav v. State of Bihar3, since divergent views have been taken by the Supreme Court on whether the failure of the Prosecution to explain the injuries sustained by accused would mean suppression of truth and origin and genesis of the occurrence, the Apex Court referred the matter to a larger Bench. ( 16 ) LEARNED counsel for appellant relied upon a decision in Shiv Karan v. State of rajasthan4 wherein the Apex Court has held that the absence of any explanation offered for the injuries sustained by the three accused persons including the two appellants therein makes the Prosecution case suspect and entitles the appellants therein to the benefit of reasonable doubt. ( 17 ) IN a recent decision in Cherlopalli Cheliminabi Saheb v. State of A. P. it is held by the Apex Court as follows:"that apart, the Prosecution in its version of the incident has not explained how the accused persons suffered injuries and by whom. There is an obligation on the part of the Prosecution to explain the injuries suffered by the accused. There is an obligation on the part of the Prosecution to explain the injuries suffered by the accused. In the instant case, the accused also came to the hospital almost at the same time as the deceased and the doctor who examined them after examining the deceased, therefore, these injuries on the accused persons must have been caused in the same incident in which the deceased suffered injuries which later became fatal. Hence, in the absence of any explanation from the prosecution as to the injuries on the appellant, we are of the opinion that the prosecution version of the incident becomes doubtful. " ( 18 ) THOUGH A-l, A-4 and A-6 received simple injuries, some of them sustained incised wounds also on the vital parts of the body. It is not the case of the Prosecution that the injuries were inflicted by the accused themselves or that they received those injuries at a different place and at a different time at the hands of some unknown persons. Therefore, considering the nature of injuries sustained by A-l, A-4 and A-6 and the fact that A-l lodged report against P. Ws. 1,2 and 4 much prior to the lodging of FIR in this case it can be said that the Prosecution has not come forward with the true version of the incident. The origin and genesis of the occurrence has been suppressed by the prosecution. If really the incident took place in the manner alleged by the Prosecution, certainly police would have found bloodstained earth in front of the house of chinna Nageswara Rao, but the alleged bloodstained earth collected from this place did not contain human blood as per the chemical analysis. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the clear opinion that the Prosecution has not come forward with the true version of the incident, and that the incident must have taken place at some place other than in front of the house of Chinna Nageswara Rao. ( 19 ) P. WS. 3 and 5 are independent witnesses. They did not support the prosecution case in toto, though P. W. 3 supported to some extent. He deposed that at about 8 p-m. , A-l, A-4 and A-6 went to the house of P. W. 4 and A-l beat the deceased, hacked him on the left hand and on the left waist below the ribs. They did not support the prosecution case in toto, though P. W. 3 supported to some extent. He deposed that at about 8 p-m. , A-l, A-4 and A-6 went to the house of P. W. 4 and A-l beat the deceased, hacked him on the left hand and on the left waist below the ribs. P. W. 5 also stated that he heard some cries from the house of p. W. 4 at about 8. 30 p. m. he rushed there and found A-l dragging the deceased to the road margin. He found A-l to A-8 at that place. A-l hacked the deceased on the left waist with a knife. The deceased ran towards the house of Mamidi Bhujangarao and A-l to a-8 chased him. The law on the evidence of a hostile witness has been lucidly stated as follows by the Apex Court in a decision reported in State of Rajasthan v. Bhawani. "the fact that the witness was declared hostile by the Court at the request of the prosecuting counsel and he was allowed to cross-examine the witness, no doubt furnishes no justification for rejecting en bloc the evidence of the witness. But the court has at least to be aware that prima facie, a witness who makes different statements at different times has no regard for truth. His evidence has to be read and considered as a whole with a view to find out whether any weight should be attached to the same. The Court should be slow to act on the testimony of such a witness and, normally, it should look for corroboration to his evidence. " ( 20 ) IF the evidence of a hostile witness inspires the confidence of the Court that part of the evidence can be used to corroborate the evidence of other witnesses, the evidence of P. W. 3 cannot be accepted, because he stated as though the incident had taken place in front of the house of the deceased and not on the road side margin or in front of the house of Chinna Nageswara Rao, whereas the evidence of P. W. 5 would go to show that a-l dragged the deceased to the road margin, butp. Ws. 1 and 4 did not say that A-l dragged the deceased to the road side of the margin. Ws. 1 and 4 did not say that A-l dragged the deceased to the road side of the margin. Their evidence as regards the injuries received by the deceased is completely contradictory to the evidence of P. W. 5 who stated that A-l hacked the deceased on the left waist of the deceased, but there was no such injury noticed by the Doctor. P. W. 3 also stated that A-l hacked the deceased on his left hand and above left waist and below the ribs with the knife. There was no such injury found by the Doctor. Therefore, the evidence of P. Ws. 3 and 5 cannot be used to corroborate the evidence of P. Ws. 1,2 and 4. ( 21 ) IT has next been contended by the learned counsel for appellants that even though several persons witnessed the incident, no independent witness was examined. This contention can be accepted, because P. W. 1 admitted in his cross- examination that about 50 or 60 persons witnessed the incident. P. W. 12 did not give any explanation for non-examination of even a single independent witness. Since almost all the material witnesses are inter-related, it was expected that at least an independent witness should have been examined, particularly because the evidence of material witnesses is not trustworthy. ( 22 ) EVEN though the incident took place at about 8 p. m. , P. W. 1 did not lodge report with the police till 1. 30 a. m. on 26-12-1998. The police station is situated at a distance of 14 kms. A-l, A-4 and A-6 were seen by the doctor at 9. 50 p. m. on 25-12-1998. The explanation offered by P. W. 1 is that the accused were present at Ramalayam till 11 p. m. and they had to necessary go via ramalayam to go to the police station and due to the fear of attack by the accused, they did not immediately go to the police station. After P. Ws. 3 and 5 informed them that no one was present at the temple, he left for the police station. P. Ws. 3 and 5 did not state that they informed P. W. 1 that there was no one present at the temple or that they advised P. W. 1 to lodge a report with the police, P. W. 1 also offered another explanation. He stated that they. P. Ws. 3 and 5 did not state that they informed P. W. 1 that there was no one present at the temple or that they advised P. W. 1 to lodge a report with the police, P. W. 1 also offered another explanation. He stated that they. went through the fields and reached Nandamuru Cardboard Factory and thereafter they went to Pedana police station. When the accused were not present at the temple, there was no need for them to go through the fields. Admittedly one has to cross a drainage which is of about 5v2 ft. depth at the Factory. How P. W. 1 and others crossedthatdrainagehasnotbeenexplained. The explanations offered by P. W. 1 for the delay in lodging the FIR appear to be false. ( 23 ) THERE was delay in reaching the FIR to the Magistrate s Court also. P. W. 10 admitted that the learned Magistrate received the FIR at 8. 10 a. m. on 26-12-1998. Thus, there was a delay of about 8 hours in sending the FIR to the Magistrate s Court. No doubt the delay in lodging the FIR and further the delay in sending it to the concerned Magistrate by itself is not always fatal to the case of the prosecution. But, in this case, the delay on both accounts when taken along with the other evidence on record, throws any amount of doubt that the FIR in this case was brought into existence after due deliberations. ( 24 ) COMING to the recoveries of M. Os. 15 to 19, according to P. W. 12 he arrested the accused after some of the accused were discharged from the hospital. In the presence of their confession, the knives were seized. These material objects did not contain blood as per the chemical analysis. Therefore, the recoveries do not incriminate anything against the accused. ( 25 ) P. W. 10 stated that when he examined p. W. 3 in the counter case, P. W. 3 stated that a-l, A-4 and A-6 went to Ramalayam and p. Ws. 1,2 and 4 and the deceased armed with sticks and knives came against them and both groups quarreled with other. When this aspect of the case has been confronted to p. W. 3, the lower Court rightly disallowed the same. 1,2 and 4 and the deceased armed with sticks and knives came against them and both groups quarreled with other. When this aspect of the case has been confronted to p. W. 3, the lower Court rightly disallowed the same. Though the said statement is no evidence in this case, it gives rise to a suspicion that the incident might not have taken place in front of the house of P. W. 4. ( 26 ) IN view of the above discussion, the order of conviction and sentence has to be set aside on the following grounds. (I) There is no material on record, except the oral testimony of P. Ws. 1 to 5, to show that the incident in question took place in front of the house of P. W. 4. Their evidence is not supported by the report of the FSL, because the bloodstained material seized from the place did not contain human blood at all. (II) Not even a single independent witness was examined in support of the prosecution case which was quite necessary in this case because of the unreliable testimony of the material prosecution witnesses. (III) There was no motive for the accused to do away with the life of the deceased. (IV) There was delay in lodging the FIR with the police. (V) There was also delay in sending the fir to the Magistrate s Court. (VI) The injuries sustained by the injured accused were not explained by the prosecution. (VII) The name of A-8 was not at all found in the FIR as one of the accused. (VIII) A-5 was present at the dead body of the deceased till it was removed. Had he really participated in the commission of the offence, he would not have remained at the dead body. (IX) The improvements made by the witnesses go to the root of the case and belie the Prosecution case. (X) According to Ex. P-1 the deceased died on the spot after receipt of injuries as though at his residence, whereas some of the witnesses stated that the deceased was chased towards the house of Jagannadha Rao. (XI) Five contradictions have been elicited in the FIR. (XII) The names of P. Ws. 3 and 5 have not been stated in the FIR as the eyewitnesses to the incident. (XI) Five contradictions have been elicited in the FIR. (XII) The names of P. Ws. 3 and 5 have not been stated in the FIR as the eyewitnesses to the incident. On the other hand, it has been specifically mentioned that Chinnam dhanalakshmi and Chinnam Pentaiah witnessed it. These two persons were not examined. (XIII) P. W. 1 stated that while he and others including the deceased were taking food, the attack was made. The postmortem report shows that 500 gms. of partly digested food was found in the stomach of the deceased, which falsifies the version of this witness. (XIV) M. Os. 15 to 19 which were allegedly used by the accused in the commission of the offence did not contain blood at all. ( 27 ) THE cumulative effect of the aforesaid circumstances would clearly show that the prosecution suppressed the genesis and origin of the occurrence, and there must have been a free-fight between the parties at some other place which has not been borne out from the record. Therefore, the impugned order of conviction and sentence is liable to be set aside. ( 28 ) IN the result, the impugned order of conviction and sentence is set aside. Both the appeals are allowed. The accused-appellants in both the appeals shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.