( 1 ) THIS is an appeal filed by the accused persons in Sessions case No. 411 of 1998. All the accused were charged with offences u/s. 148 and 302 IPC. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution examined 8 witnesses and exhibited 16 documents. The trial court convicted them for the offence u/sec. 148 IPC and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment. They were also convicted u/sec. 302 r/w 149 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. They were also fined Rs. 500/- each in default of payment of fine they have to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. ( 2 ) IN the charge-sheet it was alleged that 20 years prior to the occurrence father of a-1 was murdered. Deceased Janardhan reddy and others were accused in that case that case ended in acquittal. Since then there were ill feelings between the family of the deceased and the family of A-l. In the year 1995 an attempt to murder A-l had taken place and in this allegedly the deceased janardhan Reddy and his followers were involved. A case Crime No. 22/95 of Midthur p. S. was registered in this connection. This case ended in acquittal in 1997. Thereafter another attack, according to the prosecution was made on the life of A-l by the deceased janardhan Reddy and his followers and a case Crime No. 5/96 was registered in midthur P. S. against the deceased Janardhan reddy, L. W. 1, L. W. 2 and others. On 1-10-97 and 3-10-97 A-l adduced evidence in Crime no. 5/96 before Assistant Sessions Judge, nandikotkur. When the case was adjourned on 3-10-97 the deceased threatened A-l on the ground that he had given false evidence against him. He also told him that if the case ended in his conviction he would see his end. A-l apprehended danger to his life. So, on 5-10-97 at about 12. 30 noon, he collected his followers A-2 to A-8, formed intoan unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons like hunting sickles, daggers and axes and in furtherance of common intention to do away with Janardhan Reddy they proceeded to the house of Pinjari Bude Saheb, Ex-Sarpanch of the village where the deceased Janardhan reddy was present with his brother Baleswar reddy, Chakali Swamulu and Pinjari Jaleel basha. A-l uttered the words by showing the deceased Janardhan Reddy Yennallu tappinchukuntavura - Veyandira Veedni (how long you escape, Kill him ). Having inspired by these words A-2 and A-3 dealt blows with hunting sickles on the head of the deceased and on his left hand. The deceased fell down. A-l stabbed him on his neck and A-4 to A-8 dealt blows on his head, chest, stomach and hands with the weapons they carried. Due to the injuries Janardhan Reddy died immediately. L. Ws. 1 to 3 went away to a distance and witnessed the occurrence. These three persons thereafter went to the scene of occurrence after the accused had left the place. They found the body of Janardhan reddy lying with bleeding injuries. They found him dead. The elder brother of janardhan Reddy by name Baleswar Reddy left the place saying tha the would inform the village Administrative Officer and give a complaint. At about 2. 00 p. m. he went to the village Administrative Officer and gave a statement. On the basis of this complaint investigation was taken up by police and charge-sheet was filed. ( 3 ) COMING to the evidence of witnesses, p. Ws. 1 and 2 are projected as eye-witnesses. P. W. 1 is resident of Chouthkur of Midthur mandal. He knew all the accused in the case. They were all residents of his village. He also knew the deceased Janardhan Reddy who was murdered by the accused, according to him 3v2 years before in the house of one bude Sab, Ex-Sarpanch of their village. He stated that, on 5-10-97 at about 12. 00 noon p. W. 2 came to his house and requested him to go with him to the house of Baleswar reddy to get money from him. He and p. W. 2 went to the house of Baleswar Reddy and asked him to give them some money. Baleswar Reddy told them that he was not having money. He took them to the house of his brother, the deceased. Baleswar Reddy and the deceased talked to each other. The deceased also expressed his inability to give them money. Then the witness, P. W. 2 the house of Bude Sab, Ex-Sarpanch of the village. The deceased told them that money from Bude Sab. He took them to the house of his brother, the deceased. Baleswar Reddy and the deceased talked to each other. The deceased also expressed his inability to give them money. Then the witness, P. W. 2 the house of Bude Sab, Ex-Sarpanch of the village. The deceased told them that money from Bude Sab. After reaching the house of Bude Sab, Baleswar Reddy enquired from the wife of Bude Sab who informed that bude Sab had gone to Kurnool and was not available in the house. The witness, deceased and P. W. 2 were standing there near the sofa. After hearing the information from the wife of Bude Sab that her husband had gone to kurnool, all these persons were discussing as to where to get money for their necessities. Meanwhile, all the accused came there. A-1 and A-7 were armed with daggers, A-4 and a-8 were armed with axes and other four accused were armed with hunting sickles. They came there running. A-l pointed out towards the deceased and said, Yennallu tappinchukuntavura- veyandira veedni (how long you escape- Kill him ). Instigated by these words A-2 hacked the deceased with hunting sickle on his head. A-3 hacked the deceased on his left hand. After receiving those injuries the deceased fell down on the ground his face facing upwards. Then A-l stabbed the deceased on his neck with dagger. Then other accused surrounded the deceased. After seeing them the witness and others went away to a distance and remained standing there. All the accused hacked the deceased and went away towards northern side by saying that if anybody in the locality depose against them they would also face the same fate as that of the deceased. After the accused left the scene of occurrence, the witness stated that, he along with his other friends went nearer to the deceased and found him lying dead with bleeding injuries. He, Baleswar Reddy and P. W. 2 stayed there for some time. Later on all the relatives of the deceased came there. Baleswar Reddy went to the house of V. A. O. to give report to him about the incident. After staying there for some time the witness and P. W. 2 went to their respective houses. On the next day morning C. I. of Police sent for him to the place where the dead body of deceased was kept. Baleswar Reddy went to the house of V. A. O. to give report to him about the incident. After staying there for some time the witness and P. W. 2 went to their respective houses. On the next day morning C. I. of Police sent for him to the place where the dead body of deceased was kept. C. I. of police examined him and recorded his statement. Prior to this incident, the father of A-l was murdered. In that case the deceased was an accused. There were ill feelings between the group of Janardhan reddy (deceased) and the group of jagannadha Goud (A-l ). An attempt to murder case was foisted against the witness, p. W. 2, deceased and others in the year 1995 at the instance of A-l. That case ended in acquittal. In the year 1996, A-l elected as mptc member from their village. Later on he foisted another case against the witness, janardhan Reddy and others. Two days prior to this incident evidence was recorded in sub-Court, Nandikotkur relating to bomb attack case against A-l. After coming out of the court, Janardhan Reddy threatened A-l by saying that he was giving evidence in the court against him with false allegations and if something happened to him he would see the end of A-l. After the said incident A-l planned to do away with Janardhan Reddy so that he would remove hurdles against him in future. In cross-examination the witness stated that accused No. 1 gave report to the police in the year 1995 and 1996 alleging that Janardhan Reddy the witness and others had made attempt on his life. He admitted that he was convicted by the Assistant sessions Judge, Nandikotkur in the case filed against him by A-l in the year 1996. A-l gave another complaint to the police in the year 1998 alleging that the witness and others made an attempt on his life. Jaleel (P. W. 2) was also one of the accused in 1998 attempt to murder case. It was true that on either side of the door of Bude Sab s house there were pials. The distance between the two pails was about 4 or 5 feet. It was true that the pials were covering the entire width of the varandah. Jaleel (P. W. 2) was also one of the accused in 1998 attempt to murder case. It was true that on either side of the door of Bude Sab s house there were pials. The distance between the two pails was about 4 or 5 feet. It was true that the pials were covering the entire width of the varandah. Janardhan Reddy and his brother baleswar Reddy were standing on one side and the witness and Jaleel were standing on the other side. Baleswar Reddy was standing in front of Janardhan Reddy nearer to door frame. The southern side pial was covered with bamboo mat on its western side. Northern side pial open. At first instance three accused came to varandah where janardhan Reddy was standing. A-1 instigated by saying Yennallu thappinchukuntavura-veyandira veedni, A-2 hacked the deceased on his head A-3 hacked janardhan Reddy on his left hand, other accused were standing in front of the varandah nearer to the place of incident. He, jaleel and Baleswar Reddy were in the same verandah when those persons surrounded janardhan Reddy. When the deceased fell down the witness and others went to some distance. They were standing on the southern side of pial nearer to the door. The wife and children of Bude Sab were there in the house when they went there. There were residential houses both on northern side and southern side of Bude Sab s house. All those houses were facing towards west. There were residential houses opposite to the house of bude Sab and all those houses were facing towards east. The street in front of Bude sab s house was about 6 yards. The residents had constructed pials by encroaching the street. One doubt bed cot could easily pass through the said street. The distance between the scene of occurrence and the house of v. A. O. was about 200 yards. The accused persons did not try to attack the witness or p. W. 2. A-l, A-2 and A-3 were standing on the back of Janardhan Reddy when they were beating him. They were standing very nearer to Janardhan Reddy. Janardhan Reddy was facing towards north when A-l to A-3 attacked him. They were standing facing towards south. Janardhan Reddy was standing at a distance of 11 /2 or 2 feet from the door frame of Bude Sab s house. They were standing very nearer to Janardhan Reddy. Janardhan Reddy was facing towards north when A-l to A-3 attacked him. They were standing facing towards south. Janardhan Reddy was standing at a distance of 11 /2 or 2 feet from the door frame of Bude Sab s house. The width of pial was more than the height of a human being. After the culprits left the scene of occurrence neighbouring residents came to that place. He and Jaleel belong to the group led by Janardhan Reddy. Their group and the group led by Jagannadham goud were not on talking terms since 1995. The witness was not doing any arrack business in the village. He denied that he was not present in the village on the date of occurrence and he had gone to Kadamur on that day. He and jaleel stayed near the dead body of Janardhan reddy for about one hour after Baleswar reddy had left from that place to give complaint to the house of V. A. O. The V. A. O. was cousin to the deceased. Baleswar Reddy did not return to the scene of offence till the witness stayed there. V. A. O. also did not come to the scene of offence till they stayed there. He did not know when the police had come to the village but he was called by police on the next day morning to the scene of occurrence. Police examined him for the first time on the next day morning. ( 4 ) P. W. 2 is Jaleel of whom P. W. 1 has mentioned in his statement. He stated that, he knew the accused and also the deceased. He also knew P. W. 1. All of them belong to the same village. On the date of occurrence at about 12. 00 noon he had been to the house of p. W. 1. From there he and P. W. 1 went to the house of Baleswar Reddy as they were in need of money. When they reached Baleswar reddy s house they were informed by baleswar Reddy that he had no money. Then they went to the house of Janardhan Reddy, he also expressed his inability saying that he was not having money. Then they decided to go to the house of Bude Sab for getting money from him. When they reached Baleswar reddy s house they were informed by baleswar Reddy that he had no money. Then they went to the house of Janardhan Reddy, he also expressed his inability saying that he was not having money. Then they decided to go to the house of Bude Sab for getting money from him. Janardhan Reddy, Baleswar reddy, P. W. 1 and this witness went to the house of Bude Sab. Bude Sab s wife informed that Bude Sab was not available and he had gone to Kurnool. They stayed there for 5 or 10 minutes discussing as to how to get the money. In the meantime A-l to A-3 and other accused came there. They were armed with hunting sickles daggers and axes. A-l uttered by showing towards Janardhan reddy "yennallu thappinchukuntavura- veyandira veedni". Instigated by these words a-2 hacked the deceased with a hunting sickle on his head, A-3 hacked Janardhan reddy on his left hand. Janardhan Reddy fell down. The witness and others went aside to a small distance. Later on all the accused surrounded Janardhan Reddy and inflicted injuries on his body with the weapons which they were holding with them. Later on they went away by saying that we should not reveal it to anybody otherwise we would also face same fate as had been faced by janardhan Reddy. After departure of the accused from the scene of occurrence he baleswar Reddy and P. W. 1 went to the place where Janardhan Reddy was lying and they found him dead. Baleswar Reddy went to the house of V. A. O. to give complaint about the incident. The witness and P. W. 1 stayed near the dead body of Janardhan Reddy when Baleswar Reddy went to the house of v. A. O. After some time, relatives of janardhan Reddy came weeping. Then p. W. I and he went to their respective houses. On the next day morning police examined him and recorded his statement. There was faction between Janardhan Reddy and jagannadham goud and because of this faction the accused murdered Janardhan reddy. In his cross-examination the witness stated that, he did not know when the father of A-1 was murdered. There were factions in the village since 1995. He did not belong to either group in the village. He used to go to work as a coolie of Janardhan Reddy. In his cross-examination the witness stated that, he did not know when the father of A-1 was murdered. There were factions in the village since 1995. He did not belong to either group in the village. He used to go to work as a coolie of Janardhan Reddy. He admitted that attempt to murder cases were filed against him, P. W. 1, Janardhan Reddy and another by A-l in the year 1995 and also in the year 1996. He stated before the police that he and P. W. 1 went to the house of baleswar Reddy as they were in need of money. ( 5 ) P. W. 3 is V. A. O. He stated that on 5-10-97 at about 2. 00 p. m. when he was in his house a person by name Baleswar Reddy came to him and stated that his younger brother was murdered. He recorded his statement. The said Baleswar Reddy read the statement and put his signature on it. He made an endorsement below the signature of said Baleswar Reddy. Ex. P-1 is the statement recorded by him. He sent Ex. P-1 to midthur police through his talari along with a special report prepared by him. Ex. P-2 is the special report. After sending Ex. P-1 and ex. P-2 to Midthur police, he went to the place where the dead body of Janardhan reddy was lying. He saw the dead body and posted his talari to guard the dead body at and the scene of offence. On the same day at about 6 or 6. 30 p. m. C. I. of police came to the village, examined him and recorded his statement. Inquest was conducted on the dead body of Janardhan Reddy on the next day morning at 8. 00 a. m. in his presence and in presence of Pedda Rami Reddy, Khasim sab and Jayarami Reddy. Police examined the relatives of the deceased and eyewitnesses at the time of inquest. He and other panchayatdars put their signatures on the inquest report prepared by police. Ex. P-3 is the inquest report. In his presence and other panchayatdars police sized blood stained clothes, blood stained slab, control slab and pair of slippers and one leather chappal at the scene of occurrence. In cross- examination he stated that, when police arrived the village in the evening of the day of occurrence they examined him alone. Ex. P-3 is the inquest report. In his presence and other panchayatdars police sized blood stained clothes, blood stained slab, control slab and pair of slippers and one leather chappal at the scene of occurrence. In cross- examination he stated that, when police arrived the village in the evening of the day of occurrence they examined him alone. They had examined him near Vooru vakili. As soon as police arrived they had sent for him, later on he and police went to the place where the dead body of Janardhan Reddy was lying. Police stayed near the dead body of Janardhan Reddy throughout the night. He stayed along with the police near the dead body for about an hour. Later on he went to his house. Police did not send for p. Ws. 1 and 2 to the dead body of Janardhan reddy on the evening of the date of occurrence. The women folk of Bude Sab s house were not present when he went to the scene of offence. They locked the door and went away even prior to his arrival. The dead body of Janardhan Reddy was sent to government hospital, Nandikotkur after 11. 00 a. m. on 6-10-97. He and police saw the injuries found on the dead body of Janardhan reddy at the time of inquest. It was not mentioned in Ex. P-3 that the deceased was having a head injury on the occipital region. It was not said even in Ex. P-1 that the deceased was beaten on his head. The dead body was lying by having its face upwards hence it was not visible to find out the injuries caused on its backside. It is not true to suggest that police lifted the dead body of Janardhan reddy to Government hospital, Nandikotkur on 5-10-97 itself before drafting inquest. ( 6 ) P. W. 4 is daughter of the deceased janardhan Reddy. She knew P. W. 1 and p. W. 2. All the accused were also known to her. All the accused had murdered her father. On the date of occurrence at about 12. 30 noon she went to fetch water to a water tap which. was situated near Chennakesava swamy temple of the village. All the accused came there and washed their blood stained sickles daggers etc. Their clothes were blood stained. After washing the weapons they went away outside the village. On the date of occurrence at about 12. 30 noon she went to fetch water to a water tap which. was situated near Chennakesava swamy temple of the village. All the accused came there and washed their blood stained sickles daggers etc. Their clothes were blood stained. After washing the weapons they went away outside the village. She ran to her house from the tap due to fear. After going to the house she heard from the villagers that the accused murdered his (her) father. Police recorded her statement. In her cross-examination she stated that she might have gone to the tap to fetch first pot of water at about 12. 15 noon and to fetch second pot of water at about 12. 30 noon. Her father was at her house when she went to fetch first pot of water. She did not take meals by then. Her father had also not taken meals by then. At about 9. 00 a. m. on the date of occurrence they had taken break fast. She did not remember what kind of break fast she had taken on that day. When she left to fetch second pot of water her father was not available. She had stated before the police that all the accused came to the water tap and washed the weapons there. She stated that,"it is not true to suggest that I did not tell before the police that A-3 to A-8 also came to the water tap and washed the weapons thereon. I went to water tap from the other side of Bude Sab s house. Hence I did not notice if any mob gathered in front of Bude Sab s house or not. "she and her mother went to the place where the dead body of her father was lying along with her senior paternal uncle Baleswar Reddy and others. She her mother, Senior paternal uncle baleswar Reddy, another senior paternal uncle Gangadhara Reddy, Junior paternal uncle Purushottam Reddy, Venu Reddy and some of their wives went to the dead body of her father. She saw P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 at the dead body when she reached there at about 1. 00 p. m. Police had not come by then. She calls P. W. 3 as pedda nayana . She saw P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 at the dead body when she reached there at about 1. 00 p. m. Police had not come by then. She calls P. W. 3 as pedda nayana . She did not know whether P. W. 3 was junior paternal uncle s sons of his father or not. ( 7 ) P. W. 5 is the doctor who conducted postmortem of dead body. He found following the injuries on the body of the deceased; external injuries:1. Cut lacerated injury over back of skull over right upper part of occipital and right parietal region fracturing occipital and right parietal bones exposing brain matter measuring 7. 25 x 2. 5 cm. Edges clear cut and obliquely placed. 2. Cut lacerated injury over back of left ear 8. 5 cm. x 2. 5 c. m. x bone deep obliquely placed and edges clean cut. 3. Cut lacerated injury over right side of face extending from lower part of right eye to the middle of jaw on right side measuring 10. 25 cm. x 2. 25 cm. x bone deep. 4. Cut lacerated injury over right side of face extending from middle of nose to the angle of mouth on right side cutting 4 teeth and fracturing maxilla measuring 14. 5 cm. x 3. 5 cms. 5. Cut lacerated injury over chin 4. 5 cm. x. 2. 5 cm. muscle deep. 6. Cut lacerated injury over face on left side extending from middle of chin upto middle of neck on left side 16. 5 cm. x. 2. 5 cm. x. bone deep. 7. Cut lacerated injury over front of neck over traches extending on either side measuring 22. 5 c. m x. 5. 5 cm. x bone deep. 8. Cut lacerated injury over left side of neck 8. 5 cm. x. 4. 25 cm. x. muscle deep obliquely placed. 9. Cut lacerated injury over front of chest below supra sternal notch measuring 10. 5 x 2 cm. x bone deep. 10. Incised wound over middle of abdomen 9. 5 cm. x. 4. 5 cm. x cavity deep vertical. 11. Incised injury over right side of abdomen 2 cm. away from injury no. 10 vertical 4. 5 cm. x 2. 5 cm. x muscle deep. 12. Incised injury over abdomen just below umbilicus 8. 5 cm. x 1. 5 cm. and muscle deep and obliquely placed. 5 cm. x. 4. 5 cm. x cavity deep vertical. 11. Incised injury over right side of abdomen 2 cm. away from injury no. 10 vertical 4. 5 cm. x 2. 5 cm. x muscle deep. 12. Incised injury over abdomen just below umbilicus 8. 5 cm. x 1. 5 cm. and muscle deep and obliquely placed. 13. Cut lacerated injury over middle of left upper arm over lateral aspect 8. 5 cm. x 4. 25 cm. x bone deep. 14. Cut lacerated injury over middle of left lower arm over dorsal aspect 3. 5 cm. x 2. 25 cm. x bone deep and obliquely placed. Internal wounds on dissection: 1. Fracture of occipital and right parietal bones present corresponding to external injury no. 1. Blood clots present underneath skull. 2. Fracture of mandible present corresponding to external injury no. 3. 3. Fracture of maxilla present corresponding to external injury no. 4. 4. Fracture of mandible on left side present corresponding to external injury No. 6. 5. Trachea, oesophgus thypid, hyoid bone and neck veins cut upto cervical bone corresponding external injury no. 7. 6. Fracture of left clavicle, 1st and 2nd ribs on left side corresponding to external injury No. 9. 7. There is injury to liver corresponding to external injury No. 10. Internal dissection: Heart liver lungs, spleen and kidneys pale on section. Stomach contained digested food. No foul smell. Limb bones normal. Brain section pale. He was of the opinion that the deceased had died of shock and hemorrhage due to injuries to brain, liver and other injuries. Death might have occurred about 24 to 36 hours prior to post mortem examination. In cross-examination he stated that, it was true that external injury No. 7 r / w internal injury no. 5 would show that whole neck is cut through and through except the cervical bone. It can be inferred that those injuries were not possible due to stabbing but could be possible due to butchering. It cut both jugular veins by stopping supply of blood to brain. That itself was fatal to kill a man. External injury no. 1 r/w internal injury No. 1 not only caused fracture on the skull but also "promoted" thebrain. Thatitself was possible to cause death of a person. Either external injury No. 1 or external injury No. 7 would cause instantaneous death. None of the injuries were stab injuries. That itself was fatal to kill a man. External injury no. 1 r/w internal injury No. 1 not only caused fracture on the skull but also "promoted" thebrain. Thatitself was possible to cause death of a person. Either external injury No. 1 or external injury No. 7 would cause instantaneous death. None of the injuries were stab injuries. External injury no. 1 was most possible with a heavy cutting weapon like an axe. If a curved hunting sickle is used it produces a stab from the pointed end and incised would form the blade portion, some times with an intervening intact skin. Such kind of injury was more possible either on the head or on the abdomen like soft portion. Injury No. 2 to 6 and 9 might have been possible with a flat cutting weapon as the depth was not more. Injury No. 13 and 14 might have been caused when the person raised his hand to ward the blow. ( 8 ) P. W. 6 is wife of deceased. It has been noted by the learned Sessions Judge that at the first instance when the witness was put into the witness seat she stated that she was unwilling to depose as she was having threat from the accused as the accused killed most of her kith and kin but after examining the doctor as P. W. 5 the learned Addl. P. P. represented that the witness was willing to give evidence before the Court then she was examined. She stated that, she was resident of Chouthkur. Deceased Janardhan Reddy was her husband. She knew all the accused who were standing in the Court hall. They were all residents of her village. Her husband was murdered about 3 1/2 years before. Accused No. 1 and 2 and others murdered him due to faction in the village. On the date of offence she was at her house. At about 12. 00 noon her husband Janardhan Reddy, her brother-in-law Baleswar Reddy, P. Ws. 1 and 2 went to the house of Bude Sab to secure some money. About 15 or 20 minutes after the villagers were talking that Janardhan reddy was murdered near the house of Bude sab. Then she and her kith and kin went to the house of Bude Sab. She found the dead body of her husband with bleeding injuries near the house of Bude Sab. About 15 or 20 minutes after the villagers were talking that Janardhan reddy was murdered near the house of Bude sab. Then she and her kith and kin went to the house of Bude Sab. She found the dead body of her husband with bleeding injuries near the house of Bude Sab. When they went to the scene of offence P. Ws. 1 and 2 and her brother-in-law Baleswar Reddy were there. When she asked them as to who were responsible for the murder of her husband they told that A-1, A-2 and their supporters came and murdered her husband. On the next day morning she was examined by police. ( 9 ) P. W. 7 is S. I. of Police. On 5-10-97 at about 3. 30 p. m. when he was in the police station a person by name Talari Kattubadi pakkira of Choutkur village came to the police station and submitted a report sent by v. A. O. , Choutkur along with the report of a person by name Madireddy Baleswar Reddy of Choutkur. Ex. P-1 was the report given by baleswar Reddy and Ex. P-2 was the special report sent by V. A. O. After receipt of Ex. P-1 and P-2 he registered a case in Cr. No. 76/97 u/s. 147,148,302 r/w 149 IPC and submitted fir to all concerned. He sent Ex. P-1 and ex. P-2 to Magistrate, Nandikotkur. He informed about the offence to the C. I. of police. He came to police station at 18. 00 hours and took up further investigation. He assisted his C. I. during the course of investigation. In his cross-examination he stated that C. I. of police came to the police station at about 6. 00 p. m. He and C. I. went to Choutkur together in his jeep. He did not write Part I C. D. relating to the case. He denied the suggestion that report was prepared at Choutkur after their arrival. Before leaving Midthur P. S. he dispatched FIR and complaint to the Court at about 5. 30 p. m. ( 10 ) P. W. 8 was C. I. of Police. On the date of examination by the Court he was under suspension. He stated that, on 5-10-97 at about 5. 30 p. m. he was informed about reporting of this case from Midthur police station. 30 p. m. ( 10 ) P. W. 8 was C. I. of Police. On the date of examination by the Court he was under suspension. He stated that, on 5-10-97 at about 5. 30 p. m. he was informed about reporting of this case from Midthur police station. He immediately rushed to the police station and after reaching the police station at about 6. 00 p. m. he received express FIR from P. C. 2667. Then he collected staff and proceeded to Choutkur village and reached there by about 6. 45 p. m. Then he visited the scene of offence and found the dead body of the deceased in the varandah of house of ex-sarpanch Bude Sab in a pool of blood. Since it was dark he posted a guard at the scene. He also found blood relations of the deceased but nobody was in a position to explain about the incident due to grief. So he could not examine them on the same night. He examined V. A. O. and recorded his statement. On 6-10-97 he visited the scene of offence and continued investigation. He secured the presence of blood relations panchayatdars at the scene of offence and held inquest from 8. 00 a. m. to 11. 00 a. m. During the course of inquest he noticed 11 injuries on the dead body of the deceased. While the body was lifted for postmortem examination he noticed another fatal head injury which was not seen by him at the time of inquest due to clotting of blood on rear side of head of the deceased. He also found some blood footprints near the dead body. He also found one pair of leather chapels, one pair of havai chappals, a blood stained stone near the dead body. He seized blood stained clothes of the deceased. M. O. 3 was mill made white banian stained with blood. M. O. 4 was blood stained red cotton drawyer. M. O. 5 was blood stained cream colour adda pancha. M. O. 6 was red waist thread. M. O. 7 was blood stained slab. M. O. 8 was control slab. M. O. 9 was 7 slabs containing blood stain foot prints. M. O. 2 was one pair of leather chappals. M. O. 1 was one pair of havai chappals. Photographs were also taken. M. O. 6 was red waist thread. M. O. 7 was blood stained slab. M. O. 8 was control slab. M. O. 9 was 7 slabs containing blood stain foot prints. M. O. 2 was one pair of leather chappals. M. O. 1 was one pair of havai chappals. Photographs were also taken. He also examined witnesses Madireddy baleswara R eddy M. Jayaram, m. Purushotham Reddy, Chakali Swamulu, pinjari Jaleel basha, M. Leelavathi and recorded their statements. He prepared rough sketch of scene of offence, Ex. P-3 was the inquest report prepared by him. He sent the dead body for postmortem examination. He mad efforts to apprehend the accused by searching their houses but he found them absconding. On 18-10-97 the accused A-2 to a-8 surrendered before the A. J. M. F. C. , nandikotkur. Then he field a memo with a request to hand over the accused to police custody. On 1 -11-97 the accused were handed over to police by the Court. After taking the accused to police custody they were taken to nandikotkur police station. Then he secured panchayatdars A. Venkateswara Rao, V. A. O. Nandikotkur and B. Siva Goud of nandikotkur and in their presence with the assistance of S. I. Midthur he developed the foot prints of the accused each two sets one set containing 3 copies all together 14 sets of foot prints for sending the same to F. S. L. Hyderabad for comparison with the blood foot prints seized at the time of inquest. Ex. P-6 was the panchanama prepared by him. Then he sent the seized property to the court of A. J. M. F. C. , Nandikotkur with a requisition and letter of advice for onward transmission to R. F. S. L. , Arvanthapur. Ex. P-7 was the letter of request, Ex. P-8 was the letter of advice Ex. P-9 was the office copy of covering letter and Ex. P-10 was the analysis report. On 14-12-97 he received report from Medical Officer, Nandikotkur. On 23-12-97 he filed a petition before the magistrate requesting to hand over the surrendered A-1 who had surrendered in the Court on 12-12-97. On 18-2-98 he received r. F. S. L. report from Ananthapur. On 19-12-97 he received F. S. L. report from hyderabad in which Add1. On 14-12-97 he received report from Medical Officer, Nandikotkur. On 23-12-97 he filed a petition before the magistrate requesting to hand over the surrendered A-1 who had surrendered in the Court on 12-12-97. On 18-2-98 he received r. F. S. L. report from Ananthapur. On 19-12-97 he received F. S. L. report from hyderabad in which Add1. Director had opined that item 1 and 2 belong to the same individual, the right test foot print in item no. 5 tally with the items 1 and 2 in size, shape top line of the pad, inner and outer margins etc. Item No. 5 belongs to A-8. He filed charge sheet on 25-6-98. ( 11 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants has attacked the decision of the trial court of conviction of the accused persons on various grounds. He stated that, Baleswar Reddy who gave Ex. P-1 to the Village administrative Officer was not examined and the prosecution had contended that baleswar Reddy had also been murdered when the case came up for trial therefore the fir i. e. Ex. P-1 and his statement recorded by police i. e. , Ex. P-16 could not be taken into consideration at all. The learned counsel contended that u/s. 32 of the Evidence Act statement of a person who is dead is relevant when such a statement is made by a person as to cause of his own death or to any of the circumstances which resulted in his death, therefore Ex. P-1 and Ex. P-16 are not relevant for any purpose whatsoever and according to him if Ex. P-1 and P-16 are eschewed for the purposes of evidence then the whole case falls to the ground. The learned Public prosecutor, however, submitted that that cannot be the import of the law because after a person files an FIR, gives a report to the police and dies would it mean that all such cases will have to end in acquittal. She submitted that the case will have to be proved on the basis of evidence collected by the prosecution during the course of investigation and FIR is not evidence in the case it is only a piece of information which the police records with which the system comes into motion and investigation is started. She submitted that the case will have to be proved on the basis of evidence collected by the prosecution during the course of investigation and FIR is not evidence in the case it is only a piece of information which the police records with which the system comes into motion and investigation is started. If on the basis of evidence collected and produced by prosecution the case stands proved then the fact that the complainant baleswar Reddy was not examined would not be fatal to the case. She relied on a judgment of Supreme Court reported in harkimth Singv. State of Punjab. The Supreme court held; equally unjustified was the High court s reliance upon the contents of the FIR lodged by Walaiti Ram who as stated earlier could not be examined during the trial as he had died in the meantime. The contents of the FIR could have been used for the purpose of corroborating or contradicting Walaiti ram if he had been examined but under no circumstances as a substantive piece of evidence. Having regard to the facts that except the evidence of the two eyewitnesses there is no other legal evidence to connect the appellant with the offences for which he has been found guilty and that in view of the material contradictions the evidence of the two eye-witnesses cannot be safely relied upon the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt. " she also contended that FIR is otherwise not a substantial piece of evidence. FIR is only used for the purpose of corroborating or contradicting if the person who has complained is examined. In a case where the first informant died before he could depose before the court at best the purpose of corroborating or contradicting its contents by the person would not be possible. Keeping that in view that the accused could not cross- examine the first informant, the other evidence produced can be looked into. As the FIR is not a substantial piece of evidence it should not have any effect on the prosecution case if its contents were not proved by the person who gave it because of his death. In view of the judgment of the supreme Court, we feel that non-examination of the complainant on account of his death would not be fatal on its own to the prosecution case and it will depend upon facts of each case. In view of the judgment of the supreme Court, we feel that non-examination of the complainant on account of his death would not be fatal on its own to the prosecution case and it will depend upon facts of each case. If the prosecution story as revealed by the witnesses in the Court is directly contradictory to the contents of the fir it may have one effect and on the other hand if the contents of FIR are in conformity with the evidence adduced during the trial it may have altogether a different effect. The prosecution tried to establish that the report was given to the police by the VAO who had scribed the report as narrated to him by baleswar Reddy. Keeping these factors in view we will proceed further in the case in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. ( 12 ) THE second contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the evidence of so called eye witnesses P. Ws. 1 and 2 is intrinsically unbelievable. It cannot be believed that P. W. 1 and 2 were present at the scene of occurrence when the occurrence took place. He contended that from the evidence of these two witnesses and other prosecution witnesses it has been established beyond doubt that it is a faction ridden village, one group was lead by deceased Janardhan reddy and another group was lead by A-1. P. Ws. 1 and 2 are the persons belonging to the group of deceased Janardhan Reddy. P. Ws. 1 and 2 although belong to the group of Janardhan Reddy had not received any injury. It is also not expected that in a fight between two groups who have a long history of fighting each other there were cases of murders and attempt to murders in between the parties, P. Ws. 1 and 2 would leave their leader at the mercy of the accused and run away to a distance. Since both of them did not receive even a minor injury their presence at the place of occurrence was doubtful. ( 13 ) THIRDLY it is contended that the investigating Officer was categoric in his statement that he reached the scene of occurrence at 6. Since both of them did not receive even a minor injury their presence at the place of occurrence was doubtful. ( 13 ) THIRDLY it is contended that the investigating Officer was categoric in his statement that he reached the scene of occurrence at 6. 45 p. m. on 5-10-97 but he recorded the statement of P. W. 1 and 2 on the next day morning which also shows that these witnesses were planted witnesses. P. Ws. 1 and 2 stated that they had been called on the next day morning. Even the statement of Baleswar Reddy was not recorded. The investigating Officer stated that he found blood relations of the deceased but none were in a position to make a statement due to grief. This is not believable because the brother of the deceased Baleswar Reddy could go to the V. A. O. and get his statement recorded by V. A. O. but he could not give a statement before the police officer because of grief. Then these two witnesses P. Ws. 1 and 2 were not related at all to the deceased. They were his friends and even according to prosecution they were men from the group of the deceased. They would have been more enthusiastic to give evidence against the accused had they been actually the eye witnesses. ( 14 ) THE learned counsel further submits that the whole story has been developed by p. Ws. 1 and 2 that they needed some money. It also looks unnatural that for the purpose of getting some money, the purpose for which the money was required is not known, these persons were going one house after the other and thereby creating an excuse to show that four of them were together one died in the occurrence and second had died thereafter. So,p. Ws. 1 and 2 looked to be most unnatural witnesses. ( 15 ) IT is also contended by the learned counsel that the incident took place at the house of Bude Sab. Bude Sab was admittedly, even according to the prosecution, not at home when the incident occurred but Bude sab s wife who had met P. Ws. 1 and 2, baleswar Reddy and the deceased was not even examined. She could have atleast come and stated that these persons had come to her residence and they were in her house at the time of occurrence. 1 and 2, baleswar Reddy and the deceased was not even examined. She could have atleast come and stated that these persons had come to her residence and they were in her house at the time of occurrence. She was not at all examined. She had not been even examined by the police although P. Ws. 1 and 2 stated that she along with her daughters were present in the house. ( 16 ) THE learned counsel further submits that, according to the prosecution and the statement of Investigating Officer the occurrence took place on the pial of the house of Bude Sab. This pial was roughly 5x6 feet, so it is not conceivable that 12 people (8 accused P. Ws. 1 and 2, deceased and baleswar Reddy) could have stood in that place as that place was not sufficient to accommodate 12 persons. It has also come in evidence that both P. Ws. 1 and 2 were accused in number of cases which were filed by A-1. These witnesses P. Ws. 1 and 2 were admittedly factionists belonging to a faction headed by deceased. There is no further corroboration to the evidence of these two eye witnesses, therefore it is contended by the learned counsel that it is not safe to uphold the conviction. ( 17 ) COMING to the evidence of P. W. 4. P. W. 4 is daughter of the deceased. She was not an eye-witness. She reached the spot after the occurrence. She stated that when she had gone to fetch water, the accused came there and washed their hunting sickles, daggers etc. According to this witness the place where from she was fetching water was more than a furlong from her house. All the villagers used to get water from there. Bus stop was situated opposite to the said water tap. There were houses opposite to the said water tap. It is a public place where there is a well where all the villagers go to get water, there is a bus stop but nobody except the daughter of the deceased saw all the accused washing their blood stained sickles daggers etc. In the first instance it does not appeal to the mind that these persons after committing the murder would go to a public place where there could be dozens of persons to wash their sickles, daggers. In the first instance it does not appeal to the mind that these persons after committing the murder would go to a public place where there could be dozens of persons to wash their sickles, daggers. P. W. 8 the investigating Officer stated that P. W. 4 did not tell him that A-3 to A-9 came to the tap and washed their weapons but P. W. 4 categorically stated that she had stated before the police that all accused had come to the water tap and washed their weapons thereon. The learned counsel further contends that, according to the prosecution story and evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2, Baleswar Reddy went from scene of occurrence to V. A. O s place and had come directly to the place of occurrence, but P. W. 4 stated, "myself and my mother went to the place where the dead body of my father was lying along with my senior paternal uncle Baleswar Reddy and others. According to the learned counsel, the evidence of this witness also throws doubt whether Baleswar reddy was at the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence because P. Ws. 1 and 2 maintained that he went to V. A. O. from the scene of occurrence and then returned along with the V. A. O. to the place of occurrence but according to P. W. 4 he accompanied the daughter and wife of the deceased from his house to the place of occurrence. ( 18 ) FOR these reasons, we hold that prosecution could not prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal is allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. The appellants are acquitted. They shall be released forth with if not needed in any other case.