B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THIS criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 25-01-2002 passed in s. C. No. 447 of 1996 on the file of the II additional Sessions Judge, Guntur in which, the learned Sessions Judge found A-1-Bandi gopalakrishna, A-2-Kota Rajagopala Rao, a-3-Kota Haribabu, A-4-Kota Chalapati Rao, a-5-Vallabhadasu Venkata Rajagopala Rao and A-6-Kota Subba Rao guilty for the offences under Sections 148 and 302 IPC, convicted them accordingly and sentenced each of them to suffer Rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 148 IPC and imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 IPC. ( 2 ) THE appellants herein are A-l to A-6 in s. C. No. 447 of 1996 on the file of the learned ii Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur. They were put on trial before the learned Sessions judge, Guntur for the offences under sections 148 and 302 IPC. ( 3 ) BRIEFLY stated the prosecution case is as under: p. W. 1-Kota Gopalakrishna is the elder brother of A-4. There were disputes between them in respect of field boundaries. They belong to different groups in the village. P. W. 1 belongs to Telugu Desham Party and a-l belongs to Congress-I party. A-2 to A-4 are the supporters of A-l. Deceased Venkata ranga Rao is the son of P. W. 1. He contested for the post of M. P. T. C. against A-l and won the election. As the Panchayat elections to the Gram Panchayat were scheduled to be held, A-l to A-6 apprehended that the deceased would contest in the elections and in which event; it would be difficult for them to win. Therefore, they decided to eliminate the deceased. On 21-5-1995, p. W. 1-B. Gopalakrishna, P. W. 2-B. Rajagopal rao, P. W. 3-Kota Saibabu, P. W. 4- muralikrishna and deceased Venkata Ranga rao went to Kanagala village to attend thirunalla. After offering prayers to ganganamma, they were returning on cycles to their village Pedavaram from Kanagala. P. Ws. 3 and 4 were coming on one cycle i. e. , p. W. 4 was pillion rider and whereas P. W. 3 was rider of the cycle. Others were coming on their respective cycles. After crossing allavaripalem and on reaching the field of I. Chandra Sekhara Rao, A-l to A-6 came across p. Ws. 1 and 4 and the deceased and beat the deceased with deadly weapons. Others were coming on their respective cycles. After crossing allavaripalem and on reaching the field of I. Chandra Sekhara Rao, A-l to A-6 came across p. Ws. 1 and 4 and the deceased and beat the deceased with deadly weapons. It is alleged that A-l and A-4 hacked the deceased with battle-axe on his head and whereas A-2, A-3, a-5 and A-6 hacked the deceased with curved knives. It is also alleged that the accused threatened P. Ws. 1 to 4 with dire consequences if they venture to come in rescue of the deceased. After assaulting the deceased, all the accused left the scene. P. W. 1 by keeping P. Ws. 2 to 4 at the scene went to Thotapalli and informed the Village administrative Officer about the incident. P. W. 9-A. Nagendra Rao is the Village administrative Officer of Pedavaram. On being informed of the incident by P. W. 1, he arrived at the scene. He passed on the message about the occurrence of incident to nagaram Police Station. He reached the scene and noticed that scene of occurrence falls within the police limits of Bhattiprolu Police station and informed the same to P. W. 1 who, there upon, went to the Village administrative Officer of Sivangulapalem and brought him to the scene. P. W. 7- k. Veera Mallikarjuna Rao is the Village administrative Officer of Sivangulapalem. P. W. 1 got the report drafted by P. W. 7, went to Bhattiprolu Police Station and presented the same to the Station House Officer at about 12. 00 midnight. P. W. 10-K. S. Chalapati rao, Sub-Inspector of Police received Ex. P-1 report from P. W. 1, registered a case in Crime no. 19 of 1995 under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149 IPC and issued Ex. P-7- first Information Report. He inspected the scene, prepared the scene of offence panchanama in the presence of P. Ws. 7 and 9 and seized material objects; M. O. 1-cycle, m. O. 2-a pair of chappals, M. O. 3-Leather hand Bag, M. O. 4-Wedding Card, M. O. 5- controlled earth, M. O. 6-Blood stained earth and M. O. 7-sample packet of paddy. He also prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence, which is exhibited as Ex. P-8. He got photographed the scene of offence by P. W. 6. Ex. P-3 is the bunch of photographs along with negatives. He also prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence, which is exhibited as Ex. P-8. He got photographed the scene of offence by P. W. 6. Ex. P-3 is the bunch of photographs along with negatives. He conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P. Ws. 7 and 9. He examined P. Ws. 2 to 5 during the inquest and recorded their statements. The opinion of panchas has been incorporated in Column No. 15 of the inquest report. During the inquest, he affected seizure of wearing apparels of the deceased. M. Os. 8 to 13 are the wearing apparels of the deceased. After the inquest, the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. P. W. 8- dr. T. Kamalakara Prasad conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased on 22-5-1995 at 3. 45 p. m. and found as many as 16 injuries. He issued ex. P-6-Post-mortem Report opining that the deceased died of shock and hemorrhage due to multiple injuries. P. W. 10 forwarded the material objects seized during the course of investigation to Regional Forensic Science laboratory, Vijayawada through Court. Ex. P-9 is the requisition, Ex. P-10 is the letter of advice and Ex. P-11 is the R. F. S. L. report. He arrested A-1, A-3 to A-6 on 6-6-1995 and sent them for remand. After completing investigation, he submitted charge-sheet before the II Additional Judicial First Class magistrate, Repalle. The learned Magistrate took the charge-sheet on file as PRC No. 38 of 1995 and committed the case to the Court of session as the offence under Section 302 IPC is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court. On committal the learned Sessions Judge, guntur, took the case on file as S. C. No. 447 of 1996 and made over the same to the II additional Sessions Judge, Guntur for disposal according to law. On hearing the prosecution and the accused, the learned sessions Judge framed charges under sections 148 and 302 IPC against A-1 to A-6. He 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 offences with which they stood charged, the prosecution examined P. Ws. 1 to 10 and marked Exs. P-1 to P-11 and M. Os. 1 to 13. He 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 offences with which they stood charged, the prosecution examined P. Ws. 1 to 10 and marked Exs. P-1 to P-11 and M. Os. 1 to 13. On behalf of the accused, they marked the contradictions in 161 Cr. P. C. statement of P. W. 1 as Exs. D-1 to d-3. The defence of the accused is that the deceased had many enemies and he was done to death in the dead of night and that the case was foisted against them due to political rivalry. The learned Sessions Judge, on thorough appreciation of the evidence brought on record, found the accused guilty for the offences under Sections 148 and 302 ipc and convicted them accordingly and sentenced them as detailed above. Assailing the judgment of conviction and sentence, the accused have filed this criminal appeal. ( 4 ) THE learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants/accused contends that p. Ws. 1,2 and 4 are planted witnesses for the purpose of this case. He also submits that there is abnormal delay in filing the First information Report with the Station House officer, Bhattiprolu Police Station and the delay has been utilized by P. W. 1 to fabricate the case against the appellants/accused. It is also submitted by him that the ocular testimony of P. Ws. 1, 2 and 4 does not suit with the medical evidence and therefore, the prosecution version is liable to be rejected. ( 5 ) PER contra, the learned Public Prosecutor submits that P. W. 1 has given a satisfactory explanation for the delay in presenting the report and the same has been accepted by the trial court and therefore, the finding recorded by the trial court in this regard is not liable to be interfered in this appeal. She further submits that the evidence of P. Ws. 1,2 and 4 is cogent, consistent and no reasons are made out by the accused in their cross-examination to disbelieve the account of the incident given by them. Reliance has been placed by her on the decisions of our Supreme Court in Solanki chimanbhai Ukhabai v. State of Gujarat and sitthi Zuraina Begum v. Union of India and others2. 1,2 and 4 is cogent, consistent and no reasons are made out by the accused in their cross-examination to disbelieve the account of the incident given by them. Reliance has been placed by her on the decisions of our Supreme Court in Solanki chimanbhai Ukhabai v. State of Gujarat and sitthi Zuraina Begum v. Union of India and others2. ( 6 ) THE case against the appellants/accused is that they being armed with deadly weapons such as battle-axe and curved knives formed themselves into an unlawful assembly on 388 21-5-1995 at 6. 15 p. m. near the field of i. Chandra Shekara Rao with the common object of killing K. Venkata Ranga Rao and that in pursuance of the said common object, they have killed K. Venkata Ranga Rao by giving blows with the battle-axes and curved knives. ( 7 ) THE prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses and proved 11 documents and exhibited 10 material objects. Of the witnesses examined, P. W. 3 did not support the case of the prosecution and the prosecution declared him hostile and marked his 161 Cr. P. C. statement as Ex. P-2. The case rests on the evidence of P. Ws. 1,2 and 4. P. W. 1 is father of the deceased and P. W. 4. P. W. 2 is the nephew of P. W. 1 being his sister s son. A-4 is the brother of P. W. 1. There is deep-rooted enmity between P. W. 1 and A-4. It has also come on record that the Village is a faction- ridden one wherein two groups exists. One group belongs to Congress-I party and the other group belongs to Telugu Desam Party. It can be said without any controversy that p. Ws. 1,2 and 4 are partisans and interested witnesses. Therefore, their evidence is required to be scrutinized carefully and - cautiously with circumspection. ( 8 ) IT is the evidence of P. W. 1 that he along with P. Ws. 2 to 4 and the deceased went to kanagala village on 21-5-1995 at about 3. 30 p. m. where they offered prayers to goddess Ganganamma. It is his further case that after performing "pooja" at Kanagala village, they were returning to their village and on reaching the fields of I. Chandra shekara Rao, all the accused came upon them and dealt blowson the deceased with various weapons they were armed. 30 p. m. where they offered prayers to goddess Ganganamma. It is his further case that after performing "pooja" at Kanagala village, they were returning to their village and on reaching the fields of I. Chandra shekara Rao, all the accused came upon them and dealt blowson the deceased with various weapons they were armed. According to him, he first went to Thotapalli and informed the occurrence to P. W. 9 and brought him to the scene and on coming to know that the scene of offence falls within the limits of sivangulapalem, he went to the said village and informed P. W. 7-Village Administrative officer about the occurrence and brought him to the scene. Thereafter P. W. 1 got the report drafted by P. W. 7 and presented the same before the Station House Officer, nagaram Police Station. He specifically states that he presented Ex. P-1-report before the station House Officer, Nagaram Police station and that at the time of presenting the report, P. W. 7 was with him. According to p. W. 10, he received the Ex. P-1-report from P. W. 1 at about 12. 00 midnight whereas p. W. 1 states that he presented Ex. P-1 report before P. W. 10 at 3. 00 a. m. The evidence of p. Ws. 2 and 4 revealed that P. W. 1 presented ex. P-1 report at the scene of offence in the morning of next day of the incident. The evidence of P. Ws. 2 and 4 with regard to presentation of Ex. P-1 report is contrary to the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 10. It is crystal clear from the evidence of P. Ws. 2 and 4 that p. W. 1 presented Ex. P-1 report at the scene of offence on the next day morning of the incident. If the evidence of P. Ws. 2 and 4 is accepted, the only irresistible conclusion is that Ex. P-1 is presented before P. W. 10 putting ante time. The incident occurred at about 6. 15 p. m. on 21-5-95. Ex. P-1 was drafted on the morning of the next day. Ex. P-7 FIR reached the Court at 7. 45 p. m. on 22-5-95. There is a delay of twelve hours in presenting the First Information Report before the police. The prosecution tried to explain the delay through P. W. 1. 15 p. m. on 21-5-95. Ex. P-1 was drafted on the morning of the next day. Ex. P-7 FIR reached the Court at 7. 45 p. m. on 22-5-95. There is a delay of twelve hours in presenting the First Information Report before the police. The prosecution tried to explain the delay through P. W. 1. According to the prosecution, p. W. 1 is not aware as to which police station has jurisdiction over the place in which the incident occurred and thereby the delay occurred. At this juncture, we may refer the evidence of P. W. 9. He states in his cross- examination that P. W. 1 did not inform him about the names of the assailants. He asserts that had the names of the assailants were informed to him, he would have sent a report to the police. For better appreciation, we may reproduce the evidence of P. W. 9 in his own words, which reads as follows: "p. W. 1 came to my house at Thotapally village, which is at a distance of about 2 kms to scene of offence. It may be even 8. 00 or 8. 00 p. m. when P. W. 1 came to my house. P. W. 1 did not inform me the names of the assailants. I would have drafted a report if P. W. 1 would have revealed the names of the assailants. I informed to the Nagaram Police that the deceased was murdered. But I did not reveal the names of the assailants. Nagaram Police came to the scene of offence while I was present there. Immediately after Nagaram police arrived to the scene of offence and after deciding that it was not lying in our jurisdiction I went to Allavaraipalem and telephoned to P. W. 7. P. W. 7 came there at about 9. 00 or 10. 00 p. m. He (P. W. 7) telephoned to Battiprolu P. S. I was there till the police came there till 11. 00 p. m. After the arrival of the police, I went away and again I came in the morning". By reading the evidence of P. W. 1, we are in no doubt to conclude that P. W. 1 did not inform the names of the assailants to P. W. 9. 00 p. m. After the arrival of the police, I went away and again I came in the morning". By reading the evidence of P. W. 1, we are in no doubt to conclude that P. W. 1 did not inform the names of the assailants to P. W. 9. What is to be inferred from the conduct of p. W. 1 in not informing the names of the assailants to P. W. 9 is that he was not aware of the assailants of the deceased when he met P. W. 9. In these circumstances delay in filing the First Information Report gains importance. It is held by the Supreme Court in Meharaj Singh (L/nk.) v. State U. P. that:"fir in a criminal case and particularly in a murder case is a vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of appreciating the evidence led at the trial. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the FIR is to obtain the earliest information regarding the circumstance in which the crime was committed, including the names of the actual culprits and the parts played by them, the weapons, if any, used, as also the names of the eyewitnesses, if any. Delay in lodging the FIR often results in embellishment, which is a creature of an afterthought. On account of delay, the fir not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger also creeps in of the introduction of a coloured version or exaggerated story. " ( 9 ) ANOTHER important circumstance which throws doubt on narration of the incident by p. Ws. 1, 2 and 4 is the recovery of only one cycle and samples of paddy. Had P. Ws. 1,2 and 4 accompanied the deceased on the respective cycles, the police must have noticed their cycles also while observing the scene of offence. More particularly, when p. Ws. 1,2 and 4 asset that they stayed at the scene of offence throughout the night and till the police shifted the dead body of the deceased to the hospital for post-mortem examination on the next day morning. The recovery of paddy samples indicates that the deceased must have gone to nearby village for business purpose. It has come on record that the deceased was doing business in paddy and he used to move around villages. The recovery of paddy samples indicates that the deceased must have gone to nearby village for business purpose. It has come on record that the deceased was doing business in paddy and he used to move around villages. P. W. 10 stated that his investigation revealed that the deceased was doing business in paddy in the neighbouring villages. The recovery of samples of paddy suggests possibility of the assailants attacked him while he was returning alone from the nearby village alone after completing his day s business. If the prosecution version that the deceased along with P. Ws. 1,2 and 4 went to kanagala to attend Thirunalla is true, there was no necessity for him to carry samples of the paddy with him. These circumstances through any amount of doubt on the testimony of the P. Ws. 1, 2 and 4 and therefore the appellants / accused are entitled to get benifit of doubt. The trial Court has observed that the appellants/accused did not suggest to P. Ws. 1,2 and 4 disputing of their accompanying the, deceased. We have gone through the evidence of P. Ws. 1, 2 and 4. A specific suggestion was made by them that they did not accompany the deceased. Therefore, the observation of the trial Court is contradictory to the evidence brought on record. ( 10 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution, A-1 to a-6 dealt blows on the deceased with battle- axe and curved knives. None of the witnesses i. e. , P. Ws. 1,2 and 4 stated that the weapons used by the appellants/accused are double- edged weapons. The post-mortem doctor stated that stab injuries found on the deceased could be caused by double-edged weapon. Admittedly, the weapons used in the commission of offence had not been recovered by the Investigating officer. In the absence of any evidence to show that the weapons used by the appellants/accused are double-edged, it cannot be inferred that the weapons allegedly used by them are double-edged. More particularly, having regard to the description given by the witnesses P. Ws. 1, 2 and 4, it is of common knowledge that they are single edged weapons. ( 11 ) IN view of the above discussion, we find that the convictions and sentences passed against the appellants/accused for the offences under Sections 148 and 302 IPC are not sustainable and they are hereby set aside. 1, 2 and 4, it is of common knowledge that they are single edged weapons. ( 11 ) IN view of the above discussion, we find that the convictions and sentences passed against the appellants/accused for the offences under Sections 148 and 302 IPC are not sustainable and they are hereby set aside. In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the convictions and sentences passed against the appellants/accused for the offences under Sections 148 and 302 IPC and they are acquitted of the same. They are directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if they are otherwise not required in any other crime.