( 1 ) A. 2 and A. 1 in Sessions Case No. 376 of 1996 on the file of the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Khammam, preferred these Crl. A. No. 1502 of 1998 and Crl. A. No. 881 of 1999, respectively, as against the judgment dated 31. 08. 1998. ( 2 ) LEANED Judge recorded the evidence of Pws. 1 to 11, marked Exs. P. 1 to P. 12, D. 1 and D. 2 and Material Objects 1 and 2 and ultimately, came to the conclusion that A. 3 and A. 4 were entitled for acquittal, but convicted A. 1 and A. 2 for an offence of attempt to murder and accordingly, convicted these accused under Section 307 of I. P. C. and sentenced them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of TEN years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- each, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one year. Aggrieved by the same, these Criminal Appeals are preferred. ( 3 ) SRI C. Praveen Kumar, learned Counsel representing the appellants in both the appeals, would contend that the learned Judge having recorded the findings disbelieving the evidence of PWs. 1 and 6, conviction could not been recorded on the solitary testimony of PW. 2, since even the evidence of PW. 2 would suffer from several infirmities. Learned Counsel also would contend that no doubt PW. 2 survived and the statement alleged to have been made by PW. 2 before the Magistrate was not produced before the Court nor the Magistrate was examined. Learned counsel would contend that it is no doubt true that PW. 2 was cross-examined in relation to the said statement only for the purpose of eliciting certain contradictions and that cannot be said as corroborative evidence, so as to convict A. 1 and A. 2. Learned counsel also would submit that when the very evidence of PW. 2 relating to PW. 1 accompanying him had been disbelieved, the story of the prosecution would fall to the ground, especially, in the light of the fact that the First Information Report, is said to have been given by PW. 1 and when the very First Information Report cannot be believed, the whole story of the prosecution is suspicious and hence, acquittal has to be recorded. 1 and when the very First Information Report cannot be believed, the whole story of the prosecution is suspicious and hence, acquittal has to be recorded. While further elaborating the submissions in detail, learned counsel placed strong reliance on Marudanal Augusti v. State of Kerala ( AIR 1980 SC 638 ), Sevi v. State of Tamil Nadu ( AIR 1981 SC 1230 ); B. Mallaiah v. State of A. P. (1980 Crl. L. J. 914 ). , B. Arjuna Rao Vs. State of A. P. , (1996 (1) ALT (Crl.) 433) and Kota Peda Nagesh v. State of A. P. , (1999 (1) ALT (Crl.) 364 ). ( 4 ) PER contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that the evidence of PW. 2 is available on record, though the statement said to have been made by PW. 2 before the Magistrate, had not been marked or brought on record or produced the same. The same was used by the Defence Counsel to cross examine PW. 2 and hence, there is nothing wrong in the learned Judge relying upon that portion of the evidence for the purpose of taking it as corroboration and hence, the conviction and sentence definitely are sustainable. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor also would submit that First Information Report is only to set the law in motion and the learned Counsel relied upon in Sohanlal v. State of Punjab ( AIR 2003 SC 4466 ). Learned Counsel also would submit that PW. 2 no doubt made a statement before the Magistrate, but he has survived and hence, mere non-bringing on record of he statement would not have fatal. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also would submit that the solitary testimony of PW. 2 also can be relied, if it is otherwise trustworthy, and conviction based on such evidence, definitely can be sustained. Reliance was placed on Chitarlal v. State of Rajasthan ( AIR 2003 SC 3590 ) and Ompraksh v. State of Uttaranchal (2003 Crl. L. J. 483 ). ( 5 ) HEARD both the Counsel at length and perused the material available on record. ( 6 ) AS already referred to supra, A. 3 and A. 4 were acquitted and A. 1 and A. 2 were convicted. It is no doubt true that as contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants, the learned Judge had viewed the evidence of PWs. ( 6 ) AS already referred to supra, A. 3 and A. 4 were acquitted and A. 1 and A. 2 were convicted. It is no doubt true that as contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants, the learned Judge had viewed the evidence of PWs. 1 and 6 with suspicion, but reliance was placed on the evidence of P. W. 2 and the medical evidence. Several infirmities also had been pointed out. ( 7 ) PW. 2 deposed that he is resident of Sambaninagar, Khammam and he knows all the accused and PW. 1 who are residents of the same locality, that about three years back at about 1. 30 or 2. 00 p. m. himself and PW. 1 were proceeding on a scooter belonging to Dodda Ashok to his house for lunch, he took a turn into the lane which had a width of four feet only and therefore, he slowed down the scooter and when he turned into the lane, one person came from his right and beat him on his head with a rod, thereafter, he lost balance and fell down from the scooter and when he got up, he found A. 1 armed with iron rod, and A. 2 armed with a sickle used to cut coconuts, and on seeing them, he became afraid and started running in the lane towards left and he entered into the house of one Jakkula Lingaiah, who is a chief mason and asked his wife to save him, that before he could close that house, A. 1 and A. 2 entered into that house. Earlier the wife of Lingaiah was coming out of the house on hearing his cries and since accused were chasing him, he entered her house and before he could close the door, the accused entered into the house and her name is Jakkula Ramulamma. Earlier the wife of Lingaiah was coming out of the house on hearing his cries and since accused were chasing him, he entered her house and before he could close the door, the accused entered into the house and her name is Jakkula Ramulamma. This witness also deposed that in that house, A. 1 beat him with iron rod, on his head five or six times, A. 2 beat him with a sickle on his left hand, left back thrice, right shoulder and thereafter, A. 1 dragged him out of the house holding hi neck, when A. 2 beat him with sickle on his neck, he fell down due to the said injuries and A. 1 and A. 2 starting moving away and then he got up and seeing that he was alive, A. 1 and A. 2 again returned saying INKA CHACHI POLEDURA , that on seeing them, he rushed into the house of Andam Pushpa, who was taking meals sitting on a cot and he started running around her cot and at that time, A. 1 came there, caught him and at that time, P. Narsamma came and pleaded with the accused not to kill him. The accused pushed her and A. 2 beat him with sickle on his right thigh and he fell down. Thereafter A. 1 beat him twice with iron rod on his left index finger. Having fallen on the ground, he pretended as if, he was dead, because earlier they had come back to beat him pointing him getting up and therefore, the accused presumed that he was dead and went away. Many people gathered after the incident. Dodda Ashok, and P. W. 1 also came there and they shifted him in a rickshaw and in the meanwhile, the Sub Inspector of Police came in a jeep and he took him in the said jeep to Government Hospital, Khamma. This witness further deposed that he was in C. P. M. party and defected to Congress party and he was supported Dodda Ashok and he was elected. Accused continued to be in C. P. M. party and he had deposed also other aspects. This witness also specifically deposed that the Magistrate also recorded his dying declaration and he was shifted from Government Hospital, Khammam to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad. This witness was cross-examined at length eliciting several details. Accused continued to be in C. P. M. party and he had deposed also other aspects. This witness also specifically deposed that the Magistrate also recorded his dying declaration and he was shifted from Government Hospital, Khammam to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad. This witness was cross-examined at length eliciting several details. Some of the suggestions that he was black mailing people and other suggestions had been denied. This witness also deposed that he defected to Congress party prior to the incident and this witness further deposed that he did not state before the learned Magistrate about his having left the house of Dodda Ashok on a scooter along with PW. 1. He had not stated before the learned Magistrate about A. 1 and A. 2 beating him at the house of Lingaiah after chased, but he stated that he was beaten by A. 1 and A. 2 at Krishna Kirana shop. This witness also deposed that he told to the learned Magistrate, that he had no enmity with A. 1 and A. 2 and he had not stated the details of A. 1 and A. 2 before the Magistrate. Several suggestions and certain omissions also were put to this witness relating to the nature of the injuries also. This witness was also cross-examined at length. The substance of the defence appears to be due to political factions and using the influence of the political leaders, this case had been foisted against the appellants. ( 8 ) PW. 4 Narsamma, specifically deposed that her house is located opposite to the house of Ramulamma-PW. 3 and she knows PW. 2, who is also resident of their street, that three years back at about 1 p. m. she was taking meals in her house, at that time P. W. 3 along with her children were coming out of her house raising cries, one Pushpamma was also coming out of her house similarly and therefore, she also came out of her house along with meal plate and at that time PW. 2 came there, held her and pleaded her to protect him saying AUNTI NANNU RAKSHINCHANDI , at that time, PW. 2 had bleeding injuries and his clothes were stained with blood, and her saree also got the blood stains when herself and PW. 2 fell down after he held her and that many people gathered there at that time. ( 9 ) PW. 2 had bleeding injuries and his clothes were stained with blood, and her saree also got the blood stains when herself and PW. 2 fell down after he held her and that many people gathered there at that time. ( 9 ) PW. 3 in substance also had deposed just like PW. 4, but she had not supported the version of the prosecution in toto and after recording her evidence, she was declared hostile and she was cross-examined by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and also by A. 1 to A. 4. ( 10 ) PW. 5 also deposed about the post-incident events. She stated that she opened the door and saw PW. 2 in a pool of blood with bleeding injuries all over the body and PWs. 3 and 4 were also presented there. No doubt this witness was declared hostile, since she was deposing contrary to 161 Cr. P. C. statement. The evidence of PW. 6 is to the effect that he found PW. 2 in a pool of blood with injuries all over the body and he questioned him as to what had happened and PW. 2 told to him that A. 1 and A. 2 had caused him those injuries and requested him to take him to the hospital saying that he would survive. This witness also deposed certain other details. ( 11 ) PW. 8 is the Doctor, who deposed in relation to the injuries specified infra. 1. Incised wound of the size of 6 inches x 3 x 1 on the nape of neck transversely located which was profusely bleeding. 2. Three incised wounds of the size of 4 x 1 x 1 each two of which were on the upper thoracic and one an anterior thoracic area of the back. 3. Two lacerations of the size of 3 x 1 x 1 each over left fore arm; 4. Laceration 3 x 1 on posterior aspect of left elbow; 5. Laceration 3 x 1 x over left elbow on the anterior aspect; 6. Two incised wounds 2 x 1 x 1 each over left shoulder; 7. Contusion 5 x 5 over the right shoulder; 8. Two incised wounds 2 x 1 x 1 each over right shoulder; 9. Two lacerations 3 x 1 x over occipital region of scalp; 10. Two lacerations 3 x x over left parietal region of scalp; 11. Two incised wounds 2 x 1 x 1 each over left shoulder; 7. Contusion 5 x 5 over the right shoulder; 8. Two incised wounds 2 x 1 x 1 each over right shoulder; 9. Two lacerations 3 x 1 x over occipital region of scalp; 10. Two lacerations 3 x x over left parietal region of scalp; 11. Two lacerations 2 x over left parietal region of scalp 12. declacerations 2 x x each over right parietal region of scalp; 13. Decised wound 2 x x over left hypo chorondium; 14. Two incised wound 1 x x each over left side of lower chest; 15. Incised wound 3 x 1 x 1 over middle 3rd of right thing; 16. 3 incised wounds 3 x 1 x 1 over the lower part of back. This witness also deposed in detail about the nature of injuries and the nature of weapon with which these injuries would have been caused and in the cross examination, this witness deposed that it is incorrect to say that injury No. 1 cannot be a grievous just because muscles and blood vessels were cut and it was profusely bleeding. As can be seen from the evidence of PW. 8, the medical evidence inasmuch as had not been seriously contraverted. ( 12 ) PW. 7 was examined in relation to Ex. P. 6 panchanama. PW. 9 was examined to prove the seizure as in Ex. P. 9. This witness deposed that A. 1 himself produced a sickle and iron rod from his house, which was inspected and found in to be 2 ft length. This witness also deposed about Mos. 1 and 2 and also Ex. P. 10. However, at that stage, this witness was declared hostile. ( 13 ) PW. 10 was also examined to prove self-same aspect and this witness supported the version of the prosecution and that the suggestions were denied. ( 14 ) PW. 11 is the Sub Inspector of Police, who had deposed about the details of investigation. This witness deposed that at the hospital, PW. 1 gave him Ex. P. 1 report and he returned to Police station, registered it as Cr. No. 67 of 1995 and issued Ex. P. 12 to the Magistrate, and visited the scene of offence, recorded the observations thereon in panchanama in the presence of PW. 7 and LW. This witness deposed that at the hospital, PW. 1 gave him Ex. P. 1 report and he returned to Police station, registered it as Cr. No. 67 of 1995 and issued Ex. P. 12 to the Magistrate, and visited the scene of offence, recorded the observations thereon in panchanama in the presence of PW. 7 and LW. 11 and again proceeded to the Government Hospital, examined and recorded the statements of PW. 1, PW. 2, LW. 6, PW. 6, PW. 5, PW. 4 and PW. 3 and on 14. 07. 1995 he arrested A. 1 and A. 2, interrogated them in the presence of PWs. 9 and 10, and that on their confession, iron rod and sickle had been seized at the house of A. 1 as in Exs. P. 8 and P. 11. In the cross-examination, this witness deposed that he did not make any G. D. entry after receipt of phone call. One Ashok telephoned to him saying that GODAVA was taking place at Sambani Nagar and accordingly he went there are he had 15 minutes to reach the scene of offence after phone call and the distance between the turning from the road to the house of Jakkula Lingaiah, husband of PW. 3 is 50 ft. and he had not seized the scooter used by PWs. 1 and 2. He also deposed that there was no mention of scooter number anywhere in the investigation, and the scooter was not available at the scene of offence and he did not make any efforts to trace that scooter. Pws. 1 and 2 were at the scene of offence when he went there. He denied certain suggestions. This witness also deposed that PW. 3 did not state before him that he was driving the scooter and PW. 1 was his pillion rider. PW. 2 did not state before him that the width of the lane was 4 feet and he stated before him that he had beaten when he was going on a scooter. PW. 2 did not state before him that as he was closing the doors of the house of PW. 3, A. 1 and A. 2 pushed it open, entered the house and then beat him. PW. 2 did not state before him that the details of beatings by A. 1 and A. 2. No doubt he denied the suggestions that PW. 2 did not state before him that as he was closing the doors of the house of PW. 3, A. 1 and A. 2 pushed it open, entered the house and then beat him. PW. 2 did not state before him that the details of beatings by A. 1 and A. 2. No doubt he denied the suggestions that PW. 2 was a rowdy element in the area and was a regular eave teaser and the inhabitants of the area had become vexed with his conduct. It was also specifically suggested that there was several complains by women members and others against PWs. 1 and 2 but always Dodda Ashok used to intervene and influence the police not to register any such complaints and the suggestion that PW. 6 tutored PW. 2 to implicate A. 1 and A. 2 in his declaration before the learned Magistrate, also had been denied and the other suggestions were denied. ( 15 ) EX. P. 1 given by PW. 1 reads as follows: to-day i. e. dt. 12. 06. 1995 at 2. 00 p. m. Myself and Mr. Ramesh while returning from the house of Mr. Ashok, and we are going by scooter to take meals to the house of Mr. Ramesh, then some person viz. , (1) Mr. Ashok Reddy (2) Mr. Veeraiah have stopped our scooter on the way and followed nearer to Mr. Ramesh with big axe and sickle and hacked to Mr. Ramesh at that time we went to nearer house, then also they came there and they rashly pressed with their legs to one old lady who was nearby their and hacked again to Mr. Ramesh and ran away. At the same time myself and Mr. Utukuru Babu, we both together taking him on the way at the same time we got to Mr. Ramesh into the jeep of the Sub Inspector of Police, I Town. To this attempt behind, we knowing that, there are some more persons. This complaint, I got prepared by Mr. P. Srinivasa Rao, and gave to the Sub Inspector of Police. For this attempt of murder there are only reasons of party grudges the persons who attempted to murder belongs to C. P. M. party. Mr. Ramesh have received many serious injuries all over his body. ( 16 ) IT is no doubt true that the learned Judge disbelieved the evidence of PW. For this attempt of murder there are only reasons of party grudges the persons who attempted to murder belongs to C. P. M. party. Mr. Ramesh have received many serious injuries all over his body. ( 16 ) IT is no doubt true that the learned Judge disbelieved the evidence of PW. 1 and equally so the evidence of PW. 6. PW. 1 deposed in detail, what had happened on the fateful day and also deposed that he gave Ex. P. 1- report. In the light of the evidence of PW. 2, no doubt the learned Judge had disbelieved the evidence of PW. 1 that he was accompanying PW. 2 at the relevant point of time. Much comment had been made relating to the same. It is no doubt true that the Magistrate, who had recorded the earlier statement of PW. 2 i. e. , dying declaration, had not been examined. Evidently, the said statement was also not brought on record, for the reason that PW. 2 survived. Submissions were made at length in this regard by the learned Counsel representing the appellants. ( 17 ) IT is pertinent to note that Ex. P. 1 was given by PW. 1. It is no doubt true that in the nature of the evidence available, the presence of PW. 1 was held to be doubtful. Hence, the Court is left with only the evidence of PW. 2 and other corroborative evidence, which actually transpires just immediately subsequent to the incident, and the medical evidence. The learned Judge also had viewed the evidence of PW. 6 with suspicion. Submissions were made at length in this regard. ( 18 ) IT is no doubt true that Ex. P. 1 does not specify all the details of the incident and it is equally true that the learned Judge recorded a finding viewing the evidence of PW. 1 itself with suspicion. Strong reliance was placed on Mohanlal vs. State of Rajasthan ( AIR 2000 SC 3441 ) and Sevi s case (2 supra ). There cannot be any controversy about these propositions that when the very F. I. R. is highly doubtful and suspicious, the version of the prosecution case would stand on a weak footing. On this contention the learned counsel for the appellants had advanced arguments at length. There cannot be any controversy about these propositions that when the very F. I. R. is highly doubtful and suspicious, the version of the prosecution case would stand on a weak footing. On this contention the learned counsel for the appellants had advanced arguments at length. Reliance was also placed on B. Mallaiah s case (3 supra) and B. Arjuna Rao s case (4 supra ). Learned Additional Public Prosecutor placed reliance on Sohanlal s case (6 supra) in relation to the F. I. R. and also relied on Chitarlal s case (7 supra), and Omprakash s case (8 supra), to substantiate his contention that on the solitary testimony of a witness, if it is trustworthy, conviction can be sustained. ( 19 ) AS can be seen from the findings recorded by the learned Judge, the learned Judge was conscious of the fact that the prior statement i. e. , dying declaration of PW. 2 made before the learned Magistrate was not brought on record. Learned Judge also observed that no reliance could be placed on FIR under Ex. P. 1 to seek corroboration to the facts of the case. But, however, learned Judge observed as under: this would have left only the evidence of PW. 2 before the Court without any corroboration by any earliest statement of the incident but, unfortunately, the accused themselves have elicited during cross-examination of PW. 2 the following with regard to his declaration to the learned Magistrate in expectancy of death. The learned Magistrate recorded my statement as stated by me. I have stated before the Magistrate that I returned the meals carriage to Dodda Ashok after Minister Chandrasekhar had his lunch, which was carried from the house of Dodda Ashok at the house of Vijayapal Reddy, Market Committee Chairman. I did not state before the learned Magistrate about me having left the house of Dodda Ashok on a scooter along with PW. 1. I have not stated before the learned Magistrate about A. 1 and A. 2 beating me at the house of Lingaiah after chasing me but I have stated that I was beaten by A. 1 and A. 2 at Kirana shop. I have told the learned Magistrate that I had no enmity with A. 1 and A. 2 and I have not stated the details of beating by A. 1 and A. 2 before the Magistrate. I have told the learned Magistrate that I had no enmity with A. 1 and A. 2 and I have not stated the details of beating by A. 1 and A. 2 before the Magistrate. Thus in view of the cross-examination of PW. 2 in relation to the prior statement i. e. , dying declaration said to have been made by PW. 2 before the Magistrate, learned Judge recorded the said findings. It is no doubt true that the evidence of PW. 2 to the extent that PW. 1 was accompanying, had been disbelieved. But the fact remains that the incident in fact happened on the fateful day. The medical evidence is clear on this aspect and also the evidence of other witnesses who had seen what actually happened, when PW. 1 approached them with bleeding injuries, requesting them to help and protect and to save his life. This witness clearly deposed, though some witnesses were declared hostile. In substance they supported the version of the prosecution. The only question with which this Court is let with is, whether the appellants/a. 1 and A. 2 can be connected with the commission of the offence on the strength of the evidence of PW. 2 and PW. 2 alone, which is corroborated by the other witnesses, who deposed about what actually transpired just immediately subsequent to the happenings and on the strength of the medical evidence, despite the infirmities pointed out by the learned Counsel representing the appellants. It is no doubt true that the evidence of PW. 1 was viewed with suspicion, equally the evidence of PW. 6. PW. 1 is said to have made Ex. P. 1 statement, on the strength of it, law was set in motion. The earlier statement of PW. 2 made before the Magistrate was not brought on record. No doubt, this circumstance may have to be viewed with some suspicion and on that ground whether the evidence of PW. 2 can be totally disbelieved? There are several omissions in the evidence of PW. 2, which had been elicited through the Investigation Officer. The very basic version of the prosecution that PWs. 1 and 2 were going on the scooter on the fateful day also had been disbelieved. The report Ex. P. 1 also, no doubt, can be viewed with suspicion and cannot be relied upon by the prosecution. 2, which had been elicited through the Investigation Officer. The very basic version of the prosecution that PWs. 1 and 2 were going on the scooter on the fateful day also had been disbelieved. The report Ex. P. 1 also, no doubt, can be viewed with suspicion and cannot be relied upon by the prosecution. Apart from this aspect of the matter, the earlier version made by PW. 2 i. e. , dying declaration, no doubt who had survived, was not brought before the Court. The learned Judge having disbelieved the evidence of PW. 1 and PW. 6 and in view of the omissions in the evidence of PW. 2, which had been elicited in the evidence of Investigating Officer, ought to have rejected the evidence of PW. 2 also. The solitary testimony of PW. 2, in the considered opinion o this Court, cannot be the basis for recording the conviction and sentence against the appellants. On over all appreciation of the facts and circumstances and the whole evidence available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the incident on the fateful day no doubt happened, but the prosecution had not established the main connecting link of the appellants with the crime. ( 20 ) IN the light of the infirmities pointed out supra, as well as the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt and giving benefit of doubt to the appellants/a. 1 and A. 2, acquittal is hereby recorded. Accordingly, both the appeals are hereby allowed. The bail bonds of the appellants/a. 1 and A. 2 shall stand cancelled.