BILAL NAZKI, CJ. ( 1 ) THE appellant is the sole accused in Sessions Case No. 585 of 1999 before the V-Addl. Sessions Judge, guntur. He was tried for an offence under section 302 IPC, convicted thereunder and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default he has to suffer simple imprisonment for one year. ( 2 ) THE gravamen of the charge was that on 14. 1. 1999 at Avuthu Rainireddy memorial Bridge, near Rapalle Canal, kollipara Village, the accused caused the death of deceased-Bonthu Koti Reddy by driving his tractor in high speed and dashing it against him due to which the deceased fell down and sustained injuries. Then the accused reversed the tractor and again hit against the deceased by saying that he would see the end of deceased on that day. A charge under Section 302 IPC was framed against the accused. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution examined 16 witnesses and exhibited 25 documents. ( 3 ) MR. C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior Counsel appearing for the appellant/ accused submits that there are three sets of eye-witnesses, one being PWs. 1, 2 and 6, second set being PWs. 3, 4 and 5 and third set being PWs. 8, 9 and 10. He submits that although the prosecution projected PWs. 8, 9 and 10 as eye-witnesses, but their testimony was rejected by the learned Sessions judge on the ground that they were examined after 16 days of the occurrence, however the trial Court relied on PWs. 1, 2 and 6, but it erred in believing these witnesses because account of versions given by them was exaggerated, unnatural, unrealistic and unbelievable. He submits that if the statements of these witnesses are not believed, then there is no evidence connecting the accused to the offence in question. Before coming to these arguments, it may be worthwhile to mention the case of the prosecution briefly. ( 4 ) P. W. I is the wife of the deceased. PWs. 2, 6 and 8 are the relatives of the deceased and also the accused. The accused and deceased are also related to each other. There was a land dispute between the accused and deceased. Four years prior to the date of occurrence the deceased purchased ac. 2-30 cents of land near temple land from one Vintha Madhavareddy for Rs. PWs. 2, 6 and 8 are the relatives of the deceased and also the accused. The accused and deceased are also related to each other. There was a land dispute between the accused and deceased. Four years prior to the date of occurrence the deceased purchased ac. 2-30 cents of land near temple land from one Vintha Madhavareddy for Rs. 1,60,000/-, whereas the accused offered Rs. 1,50,000/- for the same land, therefore the accused bore- grudge against the deceased as the latter purchased the land by offering Rs. 10,000/- more. In that connection the deceased beat the accused and a case was filed before tenali Court against the deceased on the basis of a report given by the accused. On the date of incident i. e. , 14. 1. 1999 the deceased along with PWs. 1, 2 and 6 went to the fields at about 7. 00 a. m. and after completing their work, at about 10. 30 a. m. the deceased was proceeding on a cycle at a distance of 10 to 15 yards from PWs. 1, 2 and 6. At that time the accused, who was coming on a tractor in the opposite direction near the bridge, dashed against his cycle saying "yekkadikipothavura Nakodaka Ivala nee Anthu Thelusthanu " (where will you go today, I will see your end ). When the deceased fell down, the accused reversed the tractor and again ran the tractor over him. This was also witnessed by PWs. 8 to 10. For proving this story, the prosecution examined P. Ws. 1 to 16. As has been pointed out earlier PWs. 8, 9 and 10 were not believed by the trial Court on the ground that they were examined after 16 days of the occurrence. PWs. 3, 4, 5, 7 and 11 turned hostile. Now let us examine the testimony of other witnesses. ( 5 ) P. W. 1 is the wife of the deceased. She stated that they had six acres of land which had been taken from deity on lease 30 years back. This land was originally cultivated by her father-in-law, after his death, her husband was cultivating the land and after his death, she was cultivating the land. The accused dashed his tractor and "killed her husband. Four years before the date of occurrence, her husband purchased Ac. 2-30 cents of land near deity land from Vintha madhavareddy for Rs. This land was originally cultivated by her father-in-law, after his death, her husband was cultivating the land and after his death, she was cultivating the land. The accused dashed his tractor and "killed her husband. Four years before the date of occurrence, her husband purchased Ac. 2-30 cents of land near deity land from Vintha madhavareddy for Rs. 1,60,000/ -. The accused also wanted to purchase this land and he had offered Rs. 1,50,000/-, therefore there was a grudge between the accused and the deceased. In that connection her husband had also beaten the accused and a case was filed before Tenali Court by police against her husband on a report given by the accused. The case was pending when the occurrence took place. Police examined her in connection with death of her husband. On 14. 1. 1999 she, her husband and L. W. 2 sambireddy and L. W. 3 Audiseshamma went to the fields and removed the black gram till 10. 30 a. m. Thereafter her husband cut the green grass and was bringing it on a cycle. She, L. W. 2 and L. W. 3 were following him. At about 11. 00 a. m. , they came to the authuramireddy Memorial Bridge. When her husband was on the bridge, they were behind him at a distance of 10 to 15 yards. At that time the accused was coming on a tractor in the opposite direction, he was driving the tractor. He dashed her husband with the tractor. Her husband fell down. The accused scolded her husband as "ivvala ekkadiki Pothavura Nakodaka " and also told "nee Anthu Choostanu Iwala Ekkidiki pothavu. " Then the accused again dashed the tractor against her husband. After confirming the death of her husband, the accused took his tractor over the dead body of her husband and went away on the tractor towards the village Pidaparru. There was a trolley attached to the tractor. Some persons were also in the trolley and also on the tractor. She, LWs. 2 and 3 came to the dead body and found that her husband was drenched in a pool of blood and he was already dead. The accused intentionally killed her husband because of the dispute with regard to purchase of land by her husband. She gave a report at about 2. 00 p. m. which was Ex. P1, dated 14. 1. 1999. The accused intentionally killed her husband because of the dispute with regard to purchase of land by her husband. She gave a report at about 2. 00 p. m. which was Ex. P1, dated 14. 1. 1999. She narrated the incident to the Circle inspector of Police who drafted the report. The contents of report were read over to her. In her cross-examination she stated that she filed a petition under M. V. Act before ii-Addl. District Court, Guntur being MVOP no. 319 of 1999 and it was pending. In that petition she had stated the real facts. Certified copy of MV OP was Ex. D1. She accepted that she had stated in her petition being MV op No. 319 of 1999 that the death of her husband was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor by the accused. She had signed the original of Ex. D1 after her advocate had read over the contents therein to her. She had seen her husband alive at 7. 00 a. m. , on 14. 1. 1999 before he went to the fields. In Col. No. 10 of Ex. Dl it is stated, "while the deceased was walking with his cycle, the tractor driven by the respondent in rash and negligent manner hit the deceased causing his death. " ( 6 ) P. W. 2 is a relative of the deceased and accused. He stated that the accused dashed his tractor and killed the deceased. He was examined by police. On the date of occurrence he, P. W. 1, her husband and one Sambireddy had gone to the land of the deceased to remove black gram crop. They were in the field from 7. 00 a. m. and they were returning at 11. 00 a. m. The deceased was coming towards bridge by taking green grass on a cycle. They were following him. When they reached the bridge of authu Ramireddy, the accused was coming opposite to the deceased on the bridge and saying as "naakoduka Evela Ekkidiki velathavu" he dashed his tractor against the deceased. The deceased fell down from his cycle. The accused again reversed his tractor and went over the deceased. The accused went away with the tractor towards munnangi Road. Then he, P. W. I and l. W. 2 came to the dead body. They saw the deceased in a pool of blood. The deceased fell down from his cycle. The accused again reversed his tractor and went over the deceased. The accused went away with the tractor towards munnangi Road. Then he, P. W. I and l. W. 2 came to the dead body. They saw the deceased in a pool of blood. Blood was oozing from his nose and mouth. ( 7 ) P. W. 6 is another witness, who, according to the prosecution, accompanied pw. 1 and P. W. 2 and the deceased. He stated that while they were returning after 10. 00 a. m. , from the field, the deceased was coming on a cycle by keeping green grass. He, P. W. I and P. W. 2 were following him. When they reached the bridge of Authu ramireddy, the accused was coming with his tractor from the opposite direction and he dashed the deceased with the tractor saying "yekkadikipothavura Nakodaka Ivala Nee anthu Thelusthanu. " The deceased fell down. The accused then reversed the tractor and again ran it over the deceased. After the accused confirmed himself that the deceased had died, he went on the tractor towards vijayawada. He, P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 came to the deceased and found him in a pool of blood. There were two persons on either side of the accused on the tractor and some persons were present in the trolley including two ladies. Then he went to the police station along with P. W. 1. There were disputes between the deceased and the accused with regard to purchase of land. ( 8 ) WE have already stated, PWs. 3, 4, 5, 7 and 12 turned hostile. P. Ws. 8,9 and 10 are also eye-witnesses and also narrated the same stories as other PWs. 1, 2 and 6 have stated, but they were disbelieved by the trial court on the ground that they were examined after 16 days of the occurrence. ( 9 ) P. W. 12 was a witness to inquest held over the dead body of the deceased. P. W. 13 was a witness to arrest of accused and seizure of tractor. P. W. 14 was the Sub- inspector of Police who stated that he received report Ex. P1 from P. W. 1 on 14. 1. 1999 at 2. 00 p. m. and registered it as a case in Cr. No. 2 of 1999 under Section 302 ipc. P. W. 13 was a witness to arrest of accused and seizure of tractor. P. W. 14 was the Sub- inspector of Police who stated that he received report Ex. P1 from P. W. 1 on 14. 1. 1999 at 2. 00 p. m. and registered it as a case in Cr. No. 2 of 1999 under Section 302 ipc. In his cross-examination he stated that he did not know who drafted Ex. P1-report. Although he registered the crime on 14. 1. 1999 at 2. 00 p. m. , he sent the report to the Magistrate on 15. 1. 1999. He could not explain the delay in sending the report to the magistrate. ( 10 ) P. W. 15 is the doctor who conducted post-mortem examination and found the following external injuries:1. A lacerated injury of 3 cm x 0. 5 cm x 0. 25 cm transverse present over right upper eye lid. 2. A contusion of 10 cm x 5 cm oblique with 2 cm transverse liver abrasion over it present on right zeugmatic bone below the right eye. 3. An abrasion of 3 cm x 3 cm present on the right side of forehead 2" above the right eye. 4. A lacerated injury of 2 cm x 0. 25 cm present 1" below the right side of lower lip transverse. 5. An abrasion of 7 cm x 4 cm present on the left cheek 1" in front of the left external ear oblique. 6. A contusion of 12 cm x 12 cm extending 1" from right angle of the mouth to 2" below the right mastoid process transverse. 7. A contusion of 8 cm x 4 cm present on the upper part of the left chest oblique. 8. A lacerated injury of 1 cm x 0. 25 cm present 2" above the right wrist on the extensor aspect; vertical. 9. An abrasion of 2 cm x 2 cm present on the lower 1/3rd of the front of the right forearm. 10. A contusion of 8 cm x 4 cm present on the back of the lower half of the leftarm, vertical. 11. A contusion of 4 cm x 2 cm present on left iliac crest laterally; transverse. 12. A lacerated injury of 1 cm x 0. 25 cm x 0. 5 cm present 3" below the left leg oblique. 13. 10. A contusion of 8 cm x 4 cm present on the back of the lower half of the leftarm, vertical. 11. A contusion of 4 cm x 2 cm present on left iliac crest laterally; transverse. 12. A lacerated injury of 1 cm x 0. 25 cm x 0. 5 cm present 3" below the left leg oblique. 13. A lacerated injury of 1 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm present 2" above the right patella, with surrounding bruise of 10 cm x 10 cm. 14. A lacerated injury of 5 cm x 2 cm x bone deep present on the medial aspect of the right leg 3" below the right patella; transverse. 15. An abrasion of 5 cm x 0. 5 cm oblique present 1" above the left lateral malleolus. 16. A contusion of 12 cm x 5 cm present on the back of the left chest; vertical. 17. A contusion of 10 cm x 5 cm present on the upper part of the back of the left chest; Transverse. ( 11 ) ALL the injuries are ante mortem in nature. This testimony becomes important in view of the contention of the learned senior Counsel appearing for the appellant/ accused that according to all the eyewitnesses, the accused dashed the deceased with his tractor, then reversed the tractor and ran over the body of the deceased. According to him, if this version was right, then the whole body of the deceased should have been crushed. He submits that the postmortem report does not suggest that the tractor would have run over the deceased. He states that the doctor found that the skull bones were intact, nasal bone was intact, hyoid bone was intact, there was fracture of 2nd to 10th ribs, liver was normal, spleen had lacerated injuries, kidney had a contusion and there was only a fracture of lower 1/3rd of right femur and according to the doctor, the deceased had died due to shock and haemorrhage. In his cross-examination he had also stated that if the vehicle ran over twice or thrice over the person, the possibility of crush injuries on the body was there, he could not find any crush injury over the dead body of the deceased. In his cross-examination he had also stated that if the vehicle ran over twice or thrice over the person, the possibility of crush injuries on the body was there, he could not find any crush injury over the dead body of the deceased. ( 12 ) P. W. 16 was the Circle Inspector of police who stated that after receiving F. I. R. he inspected the scene of occurrence, got it photographed, prepared sketch of scene of occurrence. He also got the inquest done. He examined PWs. 1, 2 and 6 and recorded their statements. He also examined the body of the deceased and found injuries. He also seized M. Os. 1 to 6. Although in Col. No. 10 of F. I. R. Ex. P10 it is shown that it was dispatched on 14. 1. 1999 to the Court, but no time is given. Time of registration of crime is given as 2. 00 p. m. , but it had been received by the Magistrate on 15. 1. 1999 at 6. 40 a. m. This delay has also not been explained. Besides the whole prosecution case is that the deceased was run over by the tractor twice or thrice. In the first instance the deceased was knocked down by the tractor and after reversing the tractor, the tractor along with the trolley ran over the deceased. The tractor contained many people in the trolley as well as in the tractor. The medical evidence shows that there was no crush injury. There was delay in the FIR reaching the Magistrate. There was MVOP filed by p. W. I in which compensation was sought on the ground that the death of her husband was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the accused. The cycle on which the deceased was going was not at all seized. Therefore, in our opinion, an offence under section 302 IPC is not made out. ( 13 ) FOR these reasons, we do not find that the prosecution has established a case under Section 302 IPC. The appeal is accordingly allowed, the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court are set aside and the appellant/accused is acquitted. Fine, if paid, shall be refunded. He shall be released from custody forthwith, if not required in any other case.