B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J, J. ( 1 ) THIS Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 7-2-2001 passed in S. C. No. 118 of 2000 on the file of II Additional sessions Judge, Rajahmundry, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge found a1-Paluri Suryanarayana alias Suribabu, a2-Govvala Satyanarayana alias Babji, A3- bokka Naga Venkata Ramana alias Bokka ramana and A4-Gubbala Udaya Bhaskar alias Bhaskara Rao alias Narayana not guilty for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 1pc and acquitted them accordingly. ( 2 ) RL to R4 herein are Al, A2, A3 and A4 in S. C. No. l 18 of 2000. They were put on trial before the II Additional Sessions judge, Rajahmundry, for the offence under section 302 read with 34 IPC. The gravamen of the charge against them is that on the intervening night of 7/8-9-1998 at kamanagaruvu Village in pursuance of their common intention did commit murder of paluri Pullaiah Naidu by giving knives blows and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 ipc. ( 3 ) THE prosecution case in brief is : al and Pahiri Pullaiah Naidu (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) are brothers and they had disputes between them over division of property. Al made an attempt on the life of the deceased on one occasion and he set fire to the house of the deceased on another occasion. Crimes came to be registered for the said two incidents. Thereby there was a bitter enemity between them by the date of the incident. A2 is friend of Al and whereas A3 and a4 are allegedly hired by Al to commit murder of the deceased. P. W. I Paluri nagamani is wife and P. W. 2 Paluri Krishna tulasi is daughter of the deceased. On the intervening night of 7/8-9-1998 Al to A4 armed with daggers and knives went to house of the deceased and knocked rear door of the house. On hearing sounds of the knocks the deceased opened the door. P. W. I and P. W. 2 came behind the deceased to the entrance and they saw Al and A2 and two others, who came to be subsequently identified as A3 and A4 in the illumination of the tube light fitted to prawn shed which is behind the house. On hearing sounds of the knocks the deceased opened the door. P. W. I and P. W. 2 came behind the deceased to the entrance and they saw Al and A2 and two others, who came to be subsequently identified as A3 and A4 in the illumination of the tube light fitted to prawn shed which is behind the house. As soon as the deceased came out from the house, Al stabbed the deceased with a dagger on chest, stomach and left forearm; A2 hacked him with a knife on right shoulder; A3 hacked him with a knife on the right upper arm twice and A4 hacked him with a knife on the right back of neck. P. Ws. l and 2 raised cries and thereupon al to A4 fled away. P. W. 2 went to the house of P. W. 3 Meta Venkata Rao, a rickshaw puller, and brought him to the scene and thereafter removed the deceased to hospital by the cycle rickshaw of P. W. 3. The Doctor examined the deceased and declared him dead. P. W. 6 V. Satyanarayana, si of Police, Amalapuram Taluk Police station, received Ex. P. 30 death intimation from the Government Hospital Amalapuram. He rushed to the hospital and received Ex. P. 1 report from P. W. 1 at about 4 a. m. , on 8. 9. 1998. Basing on Ex. P. l report he registered a case in Cr. No. 79 of 1998 under section 302 read with 34 IPC and issued ex. P. 31 FIR. P. W. 13 I. Hanumantha Raju, ci of Police, Amalapuram Circle, took up investigation and inspected the scene of offence. He lifted the blood stained cement earth (MO. 5), controlled cement earth (MO. 6) and MO. 7 blood stained iron baaku without handle and MO-8 Wooden handle under the cover of Ex. P. 26 scene of offence panchanama. He also prepared rough sketch of the scene, which has been exhibited as Ex. P. 45. He got the scene of offence photographed by P. W. 4 Mushini rama Chandra Rao. Exs. P. 2 to P. 6 are the positive photographs and Exs. P. 7 to 11 are the corresponding negatives. He conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P. W. 5 on the same day at 10 a. m. He examined P. Ws. Exs. P. 2 to P. 6 are the positive photographs and Exs. P. 7 to 11 are the corresponding negatives. He conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P. W. 5 on the same day at 10 a. m. He examined P. Ws. l to 3 during the course of inquest. The opinion arrived at by the panchas, on hearing the statements of witness, is incorporated in Col. No. 15 of ex. P. 25 inquest report. He got the dead body of the deceased photographed by p. W. 4. Exs. P. 12 to 17 are photos and exs. P. 18 to P. 23 are the corresponding negatives. After the inquest the dead body was sent for post mortem examination. P. W. ZDr. G. S. R. K. G. Ranga Rao, Civil assistant Surgeon, Area Hospital, Amalapuram conducted post-mortem on the dead body on 8. 9. 1998 at 1. 30 p. m. He noticed the following antemortem injuries on the dead body: (1) A fresh incised stab injury of about 8 x 1 x 2 cms present over the right side of the occipital region. (2) A fresh incised stab injury of about 6 x 1 x 2 cms present over the base of the occiput. (3) A fresh hacked ellipitical shaped cut injury of about 15 x 5 x 4 cms present over the posterior aspect right side of the back of the chest below the inferior angle of scapula. (4) A elliptical incised stab injury of about 20 x 6 x cms depth into the plural cavity horizontally directed over the right side of the back of the chest below the inferior angle of scapula. (5) A fresh cut injury of about 6 x 4 x 2 cms present over the posterior aspect of middle of right upper arm. (6) A fresh cut injury of about 6 x 3 x 1 cms present over the posterior aspect of right upper arm in the middle just below the injury No. 5. (7) A fresh stab injury of about 8 x 4 x 3 cms present over the space in between epigastrium and umbilicus. (8) A fresh incised stab injury of about 4 x 4 x 6 cms present over the left lower chest below the left nipple. (7) A fresh stab injury of about 8 x 4 x 3 cms present over the space in between epigastrium and umbilicus. (8) A fresh incised stab injury of about 4 x 4 x 6 cms present over the left lower chest below the left nipple. (9) A fresh incised stab injury of about 6 x 4 x 2 cms depth into abdominal cavity present over left lower chest below the left nipple in the mid- clavicular line. (10) A fresh incised injury of about 8 x 4 x cms depth plaural cavity horizontally directed just 5 cms lateral to the left nipple in the anterior axilliary line. (11) A fresh incised stab injury of about 10 x 5 cms depth into abdominal cavity. (12) A fresh incised injury of about 8 x 2 x 1 cms present over the posterior aspect of left forearm 5 cms below the elbow. (13) A small fresh incised injury of about 4 x 2 x 1/2 cms present over the ulnar border of left fore-arm 8 cms proximal to wrist joint. (14) A fresh incised injury of about 2 x 1 x 1 1/2 cms present over the left dorslem. He opined that the deceased of shock and hemorrhage due to fatal injuries to vital organs. Ex. P. 34 is the post mortem certificate. On 22. 9. 1998 at about 4 p. m. P. W. 13 i. Hanumantha Raju, Inspector of Police, arrested Al and recovered MO. 9 knife in pursuance of his disclosure statement under the cover of Ex. P. 27 panchanama in the presence of P. W. 5. On 24. 8. 1998 at about 5 p. m. , he arrested Al. On 19. 12. 1998 A3 came to be arrested by CI of Police, rajahmundry in the presence of P. W. 7 medipatla Veerraju Chowdary, VAO and seized MO. 11 knife in pursuance of the disclosure statement. On 22. 12. 1998 at about 9 a. m. P. W. 13 arrested A4 and seized MO. 10 knife in pursuance of his disclosure statement under the cover of Ex. P. 29 panchanama. On 23. 12. 1998 he filed requisitions before Judicial First class Magistrate, Mummidivaram and Chief judicial Magistrate, Rajahmundry to conduct test identification parade for A4 and A3 respectively. P. W. 9 B. Venkatareddy, JFCM, mummidivaram conducted test identification parade on 2. 1. 10 knife in pursuance of his disclosure statement under the cover of Ex. P. 29 panchanama. On 23. 12. 1998 he filed requisitions before Judicial First class Magistrate, Mummidivaram and Chief judicial Magistrate, Rajahmundry to conduct test identification parade for A4 and A3 respectively. P. W. 9 B. Venkatareddy, JFCM, mummidivaram conducted test identification parade on 2. 1. 1999 wherein P. W. I and P. W. 2 identified A4 as one of the culprits. Ex. P. 39 is the identification proceeding. P. W. 10 p. Annapurna, II Additional Judicial First class Magistrate, Rajahmundry conducted test identification parade on 9. 1. 1999 wherein p. Ws. l and 3 identified A3 as one of the culprits. Ex. P. 44 is the identification proceeding. After completing investigation p. W. 13 submitted charge-sheet before the 1 st Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, amalapuram. The learned Magistrate took the charge-sheet on file as P. R. C. No. 17/99 and committed the case to the Court of sessions as the offence under Section 302 ipc is exclusively triable by the Sessions court. On committal, the learned Sessions judge, East Godavari, Rajahmundry, took the case on file as S. C. No. 118 of 2000 and made over the same to II Additional Sessions judge, East Godavari, Rajahmundry, for disposal according to law. On hearing the prosecution and the accused, the learned ii Additional Sessions Judge framed a charge under Section 302 read with 34 IPC, read over and explained the same to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 IPC, the prosecution examined thirteen witnesses, proved forty five documents and exhibited twelve material objects. On behalf of the accused, they got marked the contradictions in Ex. P. l report as Ex. Dl and contradiction in section 161 Cr. P. C statement of P. W. I as ex. D2. It is the defence of the accused that the deceased had an extra-marital life with one Gollapcdli Sarojini and therefore the husband of G. Sarojini developed grudge against him. It is also the plea of the accused that the deceased had money lending business and many of his debtors had enmity with him. D2. It is the defence of the accused that the deceased had an extra-marital life with one Gollapcdli Sarojini and therefore the husband of G. Sarojini developed grudge against him. It is also the plea of the accused that the deceased had money lending business and many of his debtors had enmity with him. Therefore, either the husband of g. Sarojini or any of his debtors would have killed the deceased somewhere and that the case has been foisted against them (accused) in view of the civil disputes between them and the deceased. The learned additional Sessions Judge, on appreciation of the evidence brought on record, refused to place reliance on the testimony of P. W. I and P. W. 2 and thereby acquitted the accused by judgment-dated 7. 2. 2001. Assailing the judgment of acquittal, the State has tiled this Criminal Appeal. Pending disposal of the criminal appeal Al died and therefore the appeal against him abated stands abated. ( 4 ) LEARNED Public Prosecutor submits that the findings recorded by the Trial Court are contrary to the evidence brought on record. She further submits that P. W. I and p. W. 2 being inmates of the house are the natural witnesses to the incident and that the Trial Court rejected their testimony on flimsy grounds. It is further submitted by her that the complicity of A3 and A4 in the commission of the offence has been proved in the test identification parade conducted by P. W. 9 and P. W. 10 wherein p. W. I and P. W. 2 identified A3 and A4 as culprits. It is nextly submitted by her that the medical evidence fully corroborates the ocular testimony of P. Ws. l and 2 but the same is not properly appreciated by the trial Court and that the findings recorded by the Trial Court are perverse and the same are required to be set aside. In support of her submissions, she placed reliance in dila v. Stale of U. P. , 2002 (7) SCC 450 , sardul Singh v. State of Punjab, 1994 Crl. In support of her submissions, she placed reliance in dila v. Stale of U. P. , 2002 (7) SCC 450 , sardul Singh v. State of Punjab, 1994 Crl. LJ 626, Ravinder Kumar v. State of Punjab, 2001 (2) SCC (Crl) 1384, Anil Kumar v. State of U. P. , 2003 SCC (Crl) 770, Munshi prasad v. State of Bihar, (2002) 1 SCC 351 , State of U. P. v. Babu, 2004 SCC (Crl.) 144, Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of Delhi, (2002) 4 SCC 76 , and State of Rajasthan v. Teja Ram, 1999 SCC (Crl.) 436. ( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel appearing for R2/ a2 submits that the incident occurred in the dead of night and therefore P. W. 1 and p. W. 2 figuring as eye-witnesses to the incident is highly improbable and that the trial Court after careful evolution of the ocular testimony brought on record refused to place reliance thereon by giving cogent and convincing reasons and thereby acquitted the accused. He further submits that the Trial Court on thorough appreciation of the evidence brought on record acquitted the accused and therefore the same is not liable to be interfered in this appeal. He further submits that the arrest of A2 on 29. 8. 1998 is a make believe thing in view of the fact that the wife of A2 had approached the concemed Magistrate with an allegation that the police detained him illegally since 8. 9. 1998 and got an Advocate commissioner appointed who searched the premises of Police Station and found A2 in the lock up and thereupon the concerned police made an endorsement on the search warrant that he apprehended A2 on 22. 9. 1998 at 4 p. m. ( 6 ) LEARNED Senior Counsel appearing for R3/a3 and R4/a4 submits that the identification of A3 and A4 before the magistrate has no evidentiary value since their descriptive particulars were not given by P. W. I and P. W. 2 either in Ex. P. l report or in their Section 161 Cr. P. C statement. He further submits that P. W. I and P. W. 2 had not even given the descriptive particulars of a3 and A4 before the Magistrate on the date of identification parade. P. l report or in their Section 161 Cr. P. C statement. He further submits that P. W. I and P. W. 2 had not even given the descriptive particulars of a3 and A4 before the Magistrate on the date of identification parade. In support of his submissions, he placed in Hari Nath v. Slate of U. P. , AIR 1988 SC 345 , Manzoor v. State of U. P. , (1982) 2 SCC 72 , Manepalli anjaneyulu v. State of A. P. , 1999 Crl. LJ 4375, and Shaik Umar Ahmad Shaikh and another v. State of Maharashtra, 1998 (1) ald (Crl.) 903 (SC ). ( 7 ) THE incident occurred on the intervening night of 7/8-9-1998 between 12. 30 and 1 a. m. , near the rear door of the house of the deceased. Ex. P. 45 is the rough sketch of the scene of offence and Ex. P. 24 is the scene of offence panchanama. P. W. 5 is the panch witness for the scene of offence. P. W. 13. is the Investigating Officer who observed the scene on 8. 9. 1998 at 8 a. m. in the presence of P. W. 5 and lifted the blood stained cement earth and controlled cement earth. He also effected the seizure of m0. 7 and MO. 8 at the scene of offence. P. W. 3 is the cycle rickshaw puller and he is an independent witness. He testifies that on the night of the incident at about 1 a. m. , P. W. 2 came and solicited his assistance to shift the deceased to the hospital. He further testifies that he came to the house of the deceased and saw the deceased lying with injuries and that he shifted the deceased on his rickshaw to the hospital. The evidence of P. W. 3, P. W. 5 and P. W. 13 clearly establishes that the place of occurrence is near the rear door of house of the deceased. P. W. I and P. W. 2 are the inmates of the house and therefore they are the natural witnesses to the incident. The evidence of P. W. 3, P. W. 5 and P. W. 13 clearly establishes that the place of occurrence is near the rear door of house of the deceased. P. W. I and P. W. 2 are the inmates of the house and therefore they are the natural witnesses to the incident. ( 8 ) WE are conscious of the fact that in an appeal against the acquittal, the appellate Court is circumscribed by the limitation that no interference has to be made with the order unless the approach made by the Trial Court to the consideration of evidence is vitiated by some manifest illegality or the conclusion recorded by it is such which could not have been possibly arrived at by any Court acting reasonably and judiciously and therefore to be characterized as perverse. The plenitude of the power of the appellate Court to review and re-appreciate the evidence cannot be limited under the supposed rule that unless there are substantial or compelling reasons or very substantial reasons or strong reasons, the findings in a judgment of acquittal should not be interfered with. There is thus no immunity to an erroneous order from strict scrutiny. But the appellate court wherever it finds justification to reverse an acquittal must record reasons where the lower Court wronged. ( 9 ) IN Stale of Rajasthan v. Rajaram, 2003 (2) ALD (Crl.) 444 (SC), the Supreme court held that in an appeal against acquittal, the High Court has the same powers which the Trial Court has in examining the evidence and if it comes to the conclusion that the view taken by the Trial Court was unreasonable or against the weight of evidence, it could reject the findings recorded by the Trial Court. ( 10 ) THERE is no embargo on the appellate Court reviewing the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based. Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. The paramount consideration of the Court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is. prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. In a case where admissible evidence is ignored a duty is cast upon the appellate court to re-appreciate the evidence in a case where the accused has been acquitted for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused committed an offence or not. See State of Rajasthan v. Rajaram (supra) and State of Punjab v. Karnal Singh, 2004 SCC (Crl) 135. ( 11 ) P. W. I and P. W. 2 are wife and daughter of the deceased. They, as stated above, being inmates of the house are the natural witnesses to the incident. They categorically stated that A1 and A2 and two other unknown persons came to their house, knocked the door, and thereupon the deceased came out from the house. They further stated that A1 and A2 and two other unknown persons dealt knife blows on the deceased as soon as the latter came out from the house. They specified the overtacts of the four culprits. They identified A3 and A4 as other two culprits who participated in the commission of the offence along with Al and A2. The incident occurred between 12. 30 and 1 a. m. , on the night of the incident. They shifted the deceased to the hospital for treatment, but unfortunately the deceased succumbed to his injuries on the way to hospital and the doctor examined the deceased at the hospital and declared him dead. P. W. 6 received death intimation (Ex. P. 30) which made him to rush to the hospital where he recorded the statement of P. W. 1 at 4 a. m. The time gap is so narrow to put in any distorted version in Ex. P. l report. One of the reasons assigned by the learned Trial judge in discarding the evidence of P. W. I and P. W. 2 is that Ex. P. l report. One of the reasons assigned by the learned Trial judge in discarding the evidence of P. W. I and P. W. 2 is that Ex. P. 30 death intimation did not contain the names of the assailants of the deceased. It is to be noted that there is no column in Ex. P. 30 death intimation to mention the names of the deceased. Added to that it is an intimation sent by the hospital authorities to the police with regard to the death of the deceased. The hospital authorities are not required to mention the names of the assailants of the deceased. The Trial Judge doubted the evidence of p. W. I and P. W. 2 with regard to their identification in the illumination of tube light fitted to the prawn shed on the ground that the presence of tube light is not mentioned in the site plan. ( 12 ) LEARNED Public Prosecutor submits that non-mentioning of the tube lights in the site plan is not much material in view of the voluminous evidence brought on record with regard to the existence of tube light at the prawn shed. She placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in State of u. P. v. Babu (supra), for the proposition that the site plan is not a substantive evidence and therefore omission to indicate the location of the tube light in the site plan is not fatal. ( 13 ) THE learned Trial Judge missed to note that the existence of tube light at the prawn shed has been mentioned in the earliest report i. e. , Ex. P. 1 report presented by P. W. I before P. W. 6. Indeed, it is stated in Ex. P. l report that P. W. I and P. W. 2 noticed the assailants of the deceased in the illumination of the tube light fixed to the prawn shed. The learned Trial Judge proceeded on the assumption that one of the witnesses have admitted of the prawn shed not being visible from the rear door of the house of the deceased. We have gone through the evidence of all the witnesses on record. No witness has stated that the prawn shed is not visible from the rear door of the house of the deceased. Therefore, the findings recorded by the Trial Court is contrary to the evidence brought on record. We have gone through the evidence of all the witnesses on record. No witness has stated that the prawn shed is not visible from the rear door of the house of the deceased. Therefore, the findings recorded by the Trial Court is contrary to the evidence brought on record. The learned Trial Judge has also recorded a finding that the earliest report submitted by P. W. I at the scene of offence has been suppressed. It is no where stated by P. W. I or P. W. 2 that they presented any such report at the scene of offence. Indeed when the scene of offence was conducted, they were not present at the scene and they were at the hospital where the dead body of the deceased was lying. The findings recorded by the Trial Court are absolutely contrary to the material brought on record. Another ground on which the trial Court doubted the testimony of P. W. I and. P. W. 2 is that they did not inform the police while the deceased was being shifted to the hospital. This ground cannot be sustained for a minute as the human tendency of the blood relatives of the victim is to provide medical aid to the victim to save his life and not proceeding to the Police station to present a report. The evidence of p. W. I and P. W. 2 is cogent and convincing and there are no compelling reasons to discard their testimony. So far as the identification of A2 is concerned there cannot be any difficulty since the name finds place in the FIR itself. The specific overtacts attributed to A2 are fully corroborated by the medical evidence. Therefore, the participation of A2 in the commission of the offence is fully established. ( 14 ) WITH regard to A3 and A4, admittedly, P. W. I and P. W. 2 had no acquaintance with them. Ex. P. 1 report is scribed by P. W. 2 who is also one of the eye-witnesses to the incident. The descriptive particulars of A3 and A4 are not mentioned in Ex. P. l report. P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 also did not give the descriptive particulars of A3 and A4 when the police recorded their statements of Section 161 Cr. The descriptive particulars of A3 and A4 are not mentioned in Ex. P. l report. P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 also did not give the descriptive particulars of A3 and A4 when the police recorded their statements of Section 161 Cr. P. C. Even before the Magistrate, they did not give any detailed descriptive particulars except saying that one person is tall and thin, one person is 5 and half feet height and stout, person is very thin and one person is stout and tall. When P. W. I and P. W. 2 identified a3 and A4 in the test identification parade, a3 and A4 stated to the respective magistrates that the police showed them to the witnesses earlier. It is not the case of p. W. I and P. W. 2 that basing on the said descriptive particulars, they identified them in the Court. ( 15 ) LEARNED Public Prosecutor submits that delay in holding the test identification parade does not in any way diminish its evidentiary value since the same has been conducted within few days of the arrest of the accused. It is further submitted by her that P. W. I and P. W. 2 did not gave the descriptive particulars in their statements before the police as they could identify A3 and A4 in the test identification parade remembering the facial expressions of A3 and A4. She placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in Anil Kumar v. State of u. P. (supra ). The facts in the cited case are - On 11-6-1978 one Manoj Kumar was returning to his home. At that time he was way- laid by Chaman and four others and assaulted him with iron bars, knives and dandas. On hearing his cries his younger brother Sanjay rushed forward to protect him and embraced Manoj in order to save his life. The younger brother was only 10 years old at that time. Even on seeing that a ten year old boy has embraced manoj the assailants did not stop but continued to inflict knife and danda blows even on the young boy of 10 years. On hearing the cries of Manoj and Sanjay, their father Shri Sidheswar Dwivedi, mother Smt. Kaushalya Dwivedi and sister Sangeeta rushed to save them. They were also assaulted. Thereafter other people of the public came there and the assailants ran away. On hearing the cries of Manoj and Sanjay, their father Shri Sidheswar Dwivedi, mother Smt. Kaushalya Dwivedi and sister Sangeeta rushed to save them. They were also assaulted. Thereafter other people of the public came there and the assailants ran away. In the facts and circumstances stated above, the Supreme Court rejected the contentions of the accused therein that the test identification parade of such a delay cannot be relied upon. Coming to the facts of the case on hand they are totally different from the facts in the cited case and therefore the proposition of law laid down in the cited case is not applicable. ( 16 ) LEARNED Senior Counsel appearing for A3 and A4 submits that in the absence of any description of the culprits having given by the witnesses during their examination by the police under Section 161 cr. P. C the fact that they have chosen to give some description when examined just before the parade cannot be considered as circumstance to strengthen the evidence of identification in the Court. He placed reliance on the decision of Division Bench of this Court in Manepalli Anjaneyulu v. State of A. P. (supra ). The cited decision squarely applies to the facts of the case on hand. P. W. I and P. W. 2 did not give descriptive particulars when the police examined him. They also did not give any detailed descriptive particulars except some vague description as stout and tall before the parade conducted by the magistrates. In these circumstances, it is not safe to conclude with certainty that A3 and a4 also participated in the commission of offence. ( 17 ) IN the result, this criminal appeal is partly allowed setting aside the judgment of acquittal of R2/a2 for the offence under section 302 read with 34 IPC and accordingly he is convicted for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000. 00 (One thousand only); in default to suffer simple imprisonment six months. However, the acquittal of R3/a3 and R4/a4 for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 IPC is confirmed. The Trial Court is directed to take steps to commit R2/a2 Govvala satyanarayana alias Babji to prison for serving the sentence.