BILAL NAZKI, J. ( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned Public Prosecutor. ( 2 ) THIS appeals is filed by accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Sessions Case No. 257 of 2000, on the file of learned VII Additional Sessions judge, Kakinada, in which they have been convicted and sentenced under Section 302 read with 34 I PC. Both of them have been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. ( 3 ) THE substance of the charge is that on 11-03-2000 between 6. 00 and 6. 30 a. m. in the fields at Mangithurthi village, with a common intention, accused Nos. 1 and 2 hacked the deceased Siripurapu Vanugula rao @ Abbayya with knives. ( 4 ) BASED on these accusations, charge under Section 302 read with 34 IPC was framed against the accused. Both of them pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. ( 5 ) PROSECUTION examined 10 witnesses and exhibited 34 documents. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants at the outset submits that the case rests mainly on the evidence of P. Ws. 2 and 8. She further submits that the statements of P. Ws. 2 and 8 are intrinsically unbelievable and cannot be believed. She has also tried to defend the appellants on the ground that during investigation, the Investigating Officer had got the statements of the witnesses including p. Ws. 2 and 8 recorded by the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr. P. C. , which is evident from the testimony of P. W. 10, the investigating Officer, but those statements were suppressed and were not supplied to the accused, which has caused prejudice to the accused and the benefit has to go to the accused persons, ( 7 ) KEEPING in view these arguments, let us now examine the evidence. ( 8 ) P. W. 1 is the son of the deceased, who is not an eyewitness to the occurrence. He was informed at his house at 7. 00 a. m. by govindu (P. W. 2) and Negeswara Rao (not examined) that the deceased had been chased by accused No. 1 and another person and he had been hacked at the field channel of Kunche Nookaraju. P. W. 1 gave the first information report i. e. Ex. He was informed at his house at 7. 00 a. m. by govindu (P. W. 2) and Negeswara Rao (not examined) that the deceased had been chased by accused No. 1 and another person and he had been hacked at the field channel of Kunche Nookaraju. P. W. 1 gave the first information report i. e. Ex. P-1, in which also he stated that his father had been hacked by accused No. 1 and an unknown person. ( 9 ) P. W. 2 is one of the witnesses, who is projected as an eyewitness. At the outset, he stated that he did not know accused No. 2. He knew accused No. 1, who was the farm servant of Akkayya (P. W. 3) and accused no. 1 was living along with his wife and children in the bore shed in the land of akkayya. The deceased was cultivating ac. 1. 00 of land of Akkayya on lease. On the day of death of the deceased, at about 6. 00 a. m. , he and Gandhi Nageswara Rao were drawing water from the field channel. The deceased came to them and then went to the shed in the land of Akkayya. Within 15 or 20 minutes later, the deceased came running to them stating "champestunnaru babu" (they are killing ). He was having injuries on the side of his head and also on the hand. Accused No. 1 and another person came running behind the deceased. They were armed with knives. The other person hacked on the back of Vanugula Rao. Vanugula Rao fell in the channel. Again both accused No. 1 and the other person hacked the deceased with the knives indiscriminately. The witness and Nageswara Rao then left the place of occurrence and went to the house of P. W. 1, son of the deceased, and informed him about what had been seen by them. This witness has not identified accused No. 2 in the Court. Even in the identification parade also, which was conducted by the Magistrate, accused no. 2 was not identified by this witness, which is evident from the record of identification parade proceedings Ex. P-34. So even if we go by the evidence of this witness, he does not at all implicate accused no. 2, because he could not identify accused no. Even in the identification parade also, which was conducted by the Magistrate, accused no. 2 was not identified by this witness, which is evident from the record of identification parade proceedings Ex. P-34. So even if we go by the evidence of this witness, he does not at all implicate accused no. 2, because he could not identify accused no. 2 either in the Court when he gave his statement or in the test identification parade. ( 10 ) P. W. 3 is the person, whose land the deceased was cultivating and in whose shed accused No. 1 lives. He is also not a witness to the occurrence, but in his statement, he stated that on 11-03-2000, accused No. 1 did not come to his house in the morning. Usually he would come in the morning and also in the evening to his house. When he enquired about accused No. 1, P. Ws. 1 and 2 and others came to his house and informed him that accused No. 1 and another person had killed the deceased. P. W. 1 informed him that he was informed by Nageswara Rao and p. W. 2. Then he asked P. W. 1 to inform the police. He telephoned to the police station. ( 11 ) P. W. 4 stated that when he was milking his cow in the morning, he saw Satyavathi (P. W. 8) wife of accused No. 1 running away from the bore shed, shouting and stating that accused No. 1 and her brother-in-law were hacking the deceased Abbay. She ran away towards Tadiparthi. He was carrying milk to the house of his master. On the way, he saw both accused Nos. 1 and 2 coming in a puntha towards Tadiparthi. It was about half-an-hour after he saw Satyavathi running away. He also went and saw the dead body lying in the field channel. ( 12 ) P. W. 5 is the photographer, who took the photographs. P. W. 6 is the panch witness to the scene of offence and seizure of objects from the scene of offence. P. W. 7 is the doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and observed the following injuries. External injuries: (1) A cut injury of 1" x 1/2" x bone deep over upper part of left frontal region of scalp, vertical direction. P. W. 7 is the doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and observed the following injuries. External injuries: (1) A cut injury of 1" x 1/2" x bone deep over upper part of left frontal region of scalp, vertical direction. (2) A cut injury of 6" x 4" x bone deep from left maxillato left occipital going through scalp about the ear with beveling edge. (3) A cut injury of 2 1/2 x 1" x deep from left angle of mouth top up to back of jawmandible bone is cut. (4) A cut injury of 4" x 1 " x deep into muscles over left deltoid region from shoulder joint with tapering edge. (5) A cut injury of 1" x 1/2" over front of hyroid region of neck, transverse direction. (6) A deep cut injury of 3" x 2" deep front of right base of neck above right collar bone c1 tting through the great vessels of neck and also cutting of right of front of 7th vertebral bone. (7) A cut injury of 1" x 1/2" on right side of front of neck. (8) A complete cut of right palm from medial end near wrist cutting four metacarpal bones obliquely, leaving a skin flap at base of right thumb. (9) A cut injury of 1" x 1/2" over front of right base of thumb. (10) A cut injury of 2" x 1" bone deep over right front parietal region of scalp. (11) A cut injury of 31/2" x 2" x deep into chest with tapering edges over medial aspect of left shoulder blade, vertical direction. (12) A small cut of tip of right index finger. All the injuries are ante mortem in nature. Internal injuries: cut of left frontal bone corresponding to external injury No. 1. Cut of right frontal and parietal bones corresponding to external injury No. 10. Cut of left base of mandible corresponding to external injury No. 3. No fracture of hyroid bone. The right carotid vessels were cut corresponding to external injury No. 6. Cut of 6th and 7th ribs on left side corresponding to external injury No. 11. and also cut through base of lung tissue. ( 13 ) P. W. 8 is the wife of accused No. 1. She stated that accused No 1 was her husband and accused No. 2 was her brother- in-law. Cut of 6th and 7th ribs on left side corresponding to external injury No. 11. and also cut through base of lung tissue. ( 13 ) P. W. 8 is the wife of accused No. 1. She stated that accused No 1 was her husband and accused No. 2 was her brother- in-law. She was living with accused No. 1 for four years. She knew the deceased. The deceased was cultivating the land of P. W. 3 and was taking water to the land from the bore situated in the land of P. W. 3. Accused no. 1 suspected that she had illicit relations and that she was moving with the deceased (Vanugala Rao ). About a year and six months ago, Vanugala Rao died. On that day, in early hours at 6. 00 a. m. accused No. 1 left the house. Immediately, thereafterthe deceased came to the bore shed and informed her that he would take water from the bore. She told him that he could do so after the return of accused No. 1 to the bore well. Then the deceased started to go away, but immediately, accused No. 1 came there armed with a knife and backed the deceased. The deceased caught hold of the hand of accused No. 1 and requested him not to beat him. In the meantime, accused No. 2 came running armed with a knife. On seeing accused No. 2, the deceased started running away. Accused No. 1 again hacked the deceased with the said knife. Accused No. 1 chased the deceased, whereas accused no. 2 attempted to beat the witness with the knife. She requested accused No. 2 not to beat her, then both accused Nos. 1 and 2 chased the deceased and the deceased ran away towards the land of Kunche Nookaraju. She saw accused Nos. 1 and 2 chasing the deceased up to the sugarcane fields. She was afraid of the accused and as they could harm her, she ran away towards Tadiparthi. On the way, she saw P. W. 4 and another person sitting. She ran away and informed both that the accused were hacking the deceased. On Monday next, she went to the police station and informed the police about the occurrence. The Magistrate also recorded her statement. On the way, she saw P. W. 4 and another person sitting. She ran away and informed both that the accused were hacking the deceased. On Monday next, she went to the police station and informed the police about the occurrence. The Magistrate also recorded her statement. ( 14 ) ABOUT this witness, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the witness stated that the Magistrate recorded her statement, but that statement was kept away, therefore, this witness cannot be relief upon. She further submits that as this witness was the person who stated that her relations with the deceased were suspected, therefore, in order to get her husband convicted, perhaps she had made the statement, which she made before the Court. Learned counsel further submits that although the occurrence took place on Saturday and being an eyewitness P. W. 8 did not make a statement before the police till Monday. Even in her cross-examination, she stated that she was taken into custody a day before she had to depose in the Court at about 3. 00 p. m. and since then she was kept in the police station and that almost for 24 hours before recording her statement in the Court, this witness was kept in the police custody. Her statement made under Section 164 Cr. P. C. was suppressed. Therefore, there is no credibility to the statement made by this witness as at the time of making the statement before the court, she had been in the police custody. In this connection, reference is also given to the statement made by P. W. 10, the investigating officer, who stated"i issued a requisition to the Magistrate to record the statements under Section 164 Cr. P. C. The Magistrate recorded the statements of P. Ws. 2 and 8 and gandhi Nageswara Rao. Then I sent a requisition to the Magistrate, Tuni, for conducting identification of accused no. 2. Magistrate conducted the identification proceedings and filed the report Ex. P-34. After completion of the investigation, I filed the charge sheet against accused Nos. 1 and 2 under section 302 read with 34 IPC. " ( 15 ) SINCE the statements of P. Ws. 2 and 8, which were recorded by the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr. 2. Magistrate conducted the identification proceedings and filed the report Ex. P-34. After completion of the investigation, I filed the charge sheet against accused Nos. 1 and 2 under section 302 read with 34 IPC. " ( 15 ) SINCE the statements of P. Ws. 2 and 8, which were recorded by the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr. P. C. have not been produced and have not been given to the accused, we feel that an adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution. In this connection, we rely on the judgments of this court reported in Kota Peda Nagesh v. State of A. P. and Harijana Mulinti Bhushanna v. State of A. P. . ( 16 ) FORTHESE reasons we allow the appeal. The conviction and the sentence passed by the trial Court against the appellants-accused nos. 1 and 2 are set aside and they are acquitted. They shall be released from custody forthwith, if not required in any other case.