L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THE Court of 1 Additional District and Sessions judge, Kurnool, framed charges in S. C. No. 42 of 2002 against A-1, A-2 and A-3 for offences under Sections 302, 307 and 324 read with Section 34 I. P. C. It convicted A-1 and A-2 for the offence under Section 302 i. P. C. and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life, and to pay a fine of rs. 1,000/- each. A-3 was convicted for the offence under Section 324 I. P. C. , and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. He was also imposed a fine of rs. 500/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. This appeal is preferred against the judgment of the trial Court, by Accused Nos. 1 and 2. ( 2 ) A-1 is the husband of the deceased, narayanamma: A-2 is the brother and A-3 is the cousin of A-1. A-1 and deceased are said to have been engaged by one Mahaboob basha, to watch the mango garden at chanchu Colony, belonging to one Mr. Rami reddy. PW. 1 is the brother of the deceased, narayanamma. It is alleged that on 20-4-2001 at 5:00 p. m. , when PW. 1 was taking food, served by deceased, Narayanamma, in the hut, in the Mango garden, suddenly, all the appellants have come, and A-l is said to have pushed Narayanamma, to ground and throttled her at the neck to death. While A-2 is alleged to have caught hold of the legs of the deceased, A-3 is stated to have stabbed PW. 1. PW. 2 is the nephew, and PW. 3 is the father of PW. 1 and the deceased. A-l was also accused of beating pw. 2 with stick. They stated that they witnessed the incident. ( 3 ) ON receiving the complaint, Ex. P- 1, from PW. 1, PW. 9 registered the case and the further investigation was undertaken by pw. 11. The inquest was conducted on the body of the deceased and it was sent for post-mortem. The Doctor, who conducted the post-mortem, was examined as PW. 7. PW. 1 was said to have received some injuries, and he was treated by PW. 8. In all, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses and marked 8 documents. MOs. 1 and 2 are the blouse and cotton petticoat, respectively, recovered from the body of the deceased. The Doctor, who conducted the post-mortem, was examined as PW. 7. PW. 1 was said to have received some injuries, and he was treated by PW. 8. In all, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses and marked 8 documents. MOs. 1 and 2 are the blouse and cotton petticoat, respectively, recovered from the body of the deceased. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant submits that there is any amount of inconsistency in the evidence of PWs. 1, 2 and 3, who are said to be the eye-witnesses. He contends that the version of PVV. 1, as to the time of submission of complaint, stood belied with the evidence of PW. 9. Learned Counsel further submits that the evidence of PWs. l to 3, the alleged eyewitnesses, is most untrustworthy and that the Trial Court committed error in convicting the accused. ( 5 ) LEARNED Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that the discrepancies pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellants are not of substantial in nature. He contends that the eye-witness account of PWs. 1 to 3 is consistent for the most part of it, and that the same is sufficient to sustain the conviction of the accused. ( 6 ) ALL the accused were charged with the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of I. P. C. , for committing the murder of J. Narayanamma. In addition to that, A-3 was charged with the offence punishable under Section 307 I. P. C. , for attempting to cause the death of PW. 1. A-1 and A-2 were alleged to have been abened a-3, in committing offence under Section 307 i. P. C. A-1 was further accused of, committing the offence under Section 324 I. P. C. , against pw. 2, and A-2 and A-3 were accused of, abetting the same. ( 7 ) ACCORDING to the version of the prosecution, PWs. l to 3 are witnesses, to the commission of offences, referred to above, and that PWs. 1 and 2 are victims of offences under Sections 307 and 304 I. P. C. , respectively. The complaint, Ex. P-1, is stated to have been submitted by PW. 1 at 7:00 p. m. , to PW. 9. Therefore, much would depend upon the credibility of the testimony of PWs. 1 and 2 are victims of offences under Sections 307 and 304 I. P. C. , respectively. The complaint, Ex. P-1, is stated to have been submitted by PW. 1 at 7:00 p. m. , to PW. 9. Therefore, much would depend upon the credibility of the testimony of PWs. l to 3, as to their witnessing the commission of offences, and the truth or otherwise of the submission of the complaint, ex. P-1. ( 8 ) BROADLY stated, the evidence of pw. 1, in chief-examination, is to the following effect: a-1 and the deceased were employed by one Mr. Mahaboob Basha, to work in the mango garden, owned by one Rami reddy. On 20-4-2001, he has gone to the hut, where A-l and deceased were residing. He was served with food, by the deceased, at 5:00 p. m. Suddenly, all the accused came in a drunken condition. PW. 2, his paternal uncle, and PW. 3 his father, were also present. A-l pushed the deceased to the ground and throttled her neck. A-2 caught hold of the legs of the deceased. When PW. 2 intervened, he was beaten by a-3, with a stick. A-3 stabbed him (PW. 1) on the back with a dagger. His sister died instantly, and he proceeded to the Police station to submit a complaint. Ex. P-1 was prepared on the basis of his statement. In the chief-examination itself, he stated that pws. 2 and 3 reached the scene of offence, within half-an-hour. ( 9 ) LA me cross-examination, he stated that the extent of the mango garden of rumi Reddy is about 10 acres. According to him, there were no disputes between his family and the families of the accused. A-3 also is stated to be employed for watching the same garden. His sister did not inform him of, any quarrel between herself and the accused. He stated that the incident lasted for about i 5 minutes, and that he did not raise any hue and cry. According to him, the dead body was shitted from the hut, in the garden, to the house at 7:00 p. m. , and he along with PW. 2, proceeded to the Police Station to give complaint. He stated that the incident lasted for about i 5 minutes, and that he did not raise any hue and cry. According to him, the dead body was shitted from the hut, in the garden, to the house at 7:00 p. m. , and he along with PW. 2, proceeded to the Police Station to give complaint. His statement was said to have been recorded at 7:30 p. m. He stated that he received bleeding injuries on the hack and the soil, at the scene of offence, was stained with blood, and that he washed bloodstained cloths. He denied the suggestion that he was not present at the scene of offence, and that the deceased was killed by somebody, due to her Dad character. ( 10 ) PW. 2 is said to be another eyewitness. He deposed that he was present at the scene of offence and has seen A-1, throttling the neck, and A-2, holding the legs of the deceased. According to him, pw. 1 was stabbed by A-3, and as a result, he (PW. 1) became unconscious and fell down. He is said to have been beaten by A3, with stick. (The charge is that he was beaten with slick by A-l ). He categorically stated that, except himself and PW. 1, no other persons have witnessed the incident. PW. 3 is said to have come later. He said that he noticed nail marks on the neck of the deceased, during inquest, and that he does not know the reasons, on account of which, the deceased was killed. During the course of cross-examination, he stated that the length of the garden, in which the deceased and A-1 were engaged, is about 2 kms. , and its width is 1 k. m. According to him, Mahaboob Basha, the employer of a-1 and the deceased, was present, at the time of the incident, but did not intervene, due to fear. He stated that the deceased and A-1 were habituated to consume liquor. PW. 3 is said to have come to the scene of offence one-hour after the incident. He stated that the deceased did not raise cries, since her neck was tightly held by A-1. In the next sentence, he stated that even after hearing the cries of the deceased, neither mahaboob Basha, nor other persons, watching the garden in the neighbourhood, have come there. Himself and PW. He stated that the deceased did not raise cries, since her neck was tightly held by A-1. In the next sentence, he stated that even after hearing the cries of the deceased, neither mahaboob Basha, nor other persons, watching the garden in the neighbourhood, have come there. Himself and PW. 1 are said to have gone to the Police Station to submit the complaint within half-an-hour, after the incident. He too, denied the suggestion that he was not present at the scene of offence and that the deceased was killed on account of her illicit intimacy with somebody else. He stated that he did not inform the occurrence of the incident to the V. A. O. , or any other villagers. ( 11 ) THE third eye-witness, who is said to have seen the occurrence, is PW. 3, the father of PW. 1 and the deceased. He stated that himself, PW. 1 and PW. 2, were present, when the accused attacked and killed the deceased. All the accused were said to be in drunken condition. He stated that he noticed nail marks on the neck of the deceased, and that after the incident, he went to his house and brought PW. 4, his another son, to the scene of offence. He spoke to the fact that A-3 stabbed PW. 1 with a knife. In the cross-examination, he admitted that he did not state in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C. , (hat he has witnessed the occurrence. He said that he accompanied his eldest son (PW. 4), to the Police Station, to give complaint, but he did not inform the Police about the occurrence of the incident. ( 12 ) THE eldest son of PW. 3 and elder brother of PW. 1 and the deceased was examined as PW. 4. In his chief-examination, he stated that he came to know about the death of the deceased at about 7:00 p. m. , when his father came and informed him. He did not speak to the factum of his going to the Police Station along with his father. His evidence is almost in the form of hearsay. In the cross-examination, he stated that he noticed marks of struggle in front of the hut. Himself and PW. He did not speak to the factum of his going to the Police Station along with his father. His evidence is almost in the form of hearsay. In the cross-examination, he stated that he noticed marks of struggle in front of the hut. Himself and PW. 1 are said to have informed about the occurrence to the V. A. O. , of Chenchu Colony, and thereafter both of them proceeded to the Police Station lo submit the complaint. ( 13 ) PW. 5 is the owner of the garden, and his evidence is not of any importance. PW. 6 is a panch witness to the inquest. PW. 7 is the Civil Assistant Surgeon, government Hospital, Nandyal, who conducted the post-mortem of the deceased. He noticed nail marks around the neck of the deceased, and according to him, the cause of the death was due to asphyxia. The Doctor, who treated PW. 1, for the injury on the back, is PW. 8. He described the nature of the injuries and stated that the death of the deceased could have been caused with a sharp edged knife. The treatment was given to PW. 1 at 6:00 a. m. on 21-4-2001. ( 14 ) THE Sub-Inspector of Police stated that PWs. 1 and 2 came to the Police Station at 2:00 a. m. , on 21-4-2001 (intervening night of 20th and 21st April, 2001), and gave an oral complaint about the murder of narayanamma. The same was reduced into writing and Crime No. 46 of 2001 was registered for the offences under Sections 302 and 307 read with 34 of I. P. C. He stated that he proceeded to the scene of offence at 4:30 a. m. The Inspector, PW. 11, is said to have reached the scene at 6:30 a. m. and took over the investigation. In the cross-examination, he stated that PWs. 1 and 2 did not give any complaint at 7:30 p. m. on 20th April, 2001. He denied the suggestion that a complaint was given at that point of time and that he suppressed it. PW. 10, is the inquest panch. PW. 11 conducted inquest over the dead body from 7:00 a. m. to 9. 30 a. m. on 21-4-2001. 1 and 2 did not give any complaint at 7:30 p. m. on 20th April, 2001. He denied the suggestion that a complaint was given at that point of time and that he suppressed it. PW. 10, is the inquest panch. PW. 11 conducted inquest over the dead body from 7:00 a. m. to 9. 30 a. m. on 21-4-2001. ( 15 ) ON a consideration of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellants and learned Public prosecutor, and on examination of the entire evidence on record, we find that there are material inconsistencies and discrepancies, on certain important aspects, which would have an impact on the findings recorded by the Trial Court. Omitting minor discrepancies, we propose to concentrate on two important aspects, viz. , (a) eye-witness account, and (b) the time, at which the complaint was submitted. ( 16 ) AS pointed out earlier, PW. 1 stated that himself, PW. 2 and PW. 3 were present at the scene of offence, and all of them have witnessed the occurrence. PW. 2 is said to have been beaten by a stick by A-3, when he sought to intervene. However, in the cross-examination, he stated as under:"within half an hour my father (PW. 3), my brother (LW-2, Nagaluti) (PW. 2) came to the garden. By that time, she (the deceased), lost her breath". On this aspect, the evidence of PW. 2, in chief-examination, reads as under:"except myself, PW. 1, no other persons witnessed the incident". He stated that Mahaboob Basha, did not interfere and try to separate the deceased and the accused, due to fear. This statement falsifies the earlier version. PW. 1 stated that the incident lasted for about 15 minutes and he did not raise any cry. PW. 2, on the other hand, stated that the incident lasted for 5 minutes. In the cross-examination, he stated as under:"she (deceased) did not raise cries due to tightly holding of neck by A-1. A. 1 pulled the deceased from the hut holding her tuft of hair, while pulling she raised cries. On hearing cries of deceased neither Mahaboob basha nor the persons watching the garden of Pulla Reddy came there. The deceased struggled for five minutes before her death". ( 17 ) ACCORDING to him, PW. 3 came to the spot after the death of the deceased. PW. 3, however, stated that, himself, PW. 1 and PW. On hearing cries of deceased neither Mahaboob basha nor the persons watching the garden of Pulla Reddy came there. The deceased struggled for five minutes before her death". ( 17 ) ACCORDING to him, PW. 3 came to the spot after the death of the deceased. PW. 3, however, stated that, himself, PW. 1 and PW. 2 have witnessed the occurrence. PW. 2 deposed that PW. 1 became unconscious and fell down, when he received stab injury from A-3. PW. 1 did not state that he became unconscious, nor did PW. 3 support the version of PW. 2. ( 18 ) IF these versions of PWs. 1,2 and 3, in particular, the statement of PW. 1, that pws. 2 and 3 came half-an-hour, subsequent to the incident; that of PW. 2, to the effect that himself and PW. 1 alone have seen the occurrence, etc. , are put together, it becomes doubtful whether any of them have witnessed the incident at all. While according to PW. 1 the extent of garden is 10 acres, PW. 2 furnished of the sane to be of 2 K. M. , in length, 1 K. M. , in width, which comes to about 500 acres. Both witnesses stated that several persons were working in the neighbouring garden; but none of them have come. ( 19 ) AS for the second aspect, PW. 1 stated that, himself and PW. 2 went to the police Station to give complaint at 7:30 p. m. , and that the same was reduced into writing as Ex. P-1, PW. 2, on the other hand, stated that himself and PW. 1 went to the police Station within half-an-hour after the incident. It should be around 5:30 to 6:00 p. m. , on that day. PW. 3 stated that himself and his eldest son PW. 4, went to the Police Station to give complaint, within half-an-hour from occurrence. It has come in the evidence of PW. 2 that PW. 4 came to the scene of offence only at 7:00 p. m. , accompanied by PW. 3. PW. 4, however, has a different account in this regard. He stated in his cross-examination as under :"myself and PW. 1 informed about the occurrence to the V. A. O. of Chenchu Colony. Talary did not accompany with us to the police Station. Myself and PW. 1 went to the police Station. . . . 3. PW. 4, however, has a different account in this regard. He stated in his cross-examination as under :"myself and PW. 1 informed about the occurrence to the V. A. O. of Chenchu Colony. Talary did not accompany with us to the police Station. Myself and PW. 1 went to the police Station. . . . Within half an hour we went to the Police Station after shifting the dead body to my house". He denied the suggestion that he did not go to the Police Station at all. ( 20 ) FROM this, three versions emerge, in the matter of reporting the incident, to the police. They are: (A) By PW. 1 and PW. 2; at about 7:30 p. m. on 20-4-2001 - as stated by the said witnesses. (b) By PW. 3 and his son PW. 4; at about the same time - according to PW. 3. (c) By PW. 4 and PW. 1; at 7:30 p. m.- as deposed by PW. 4. ( 21 ) EVEN if the discrepancy, as to the time of submission, is ignored, the inconsistencies noticed above, demonstrate the falsity of the versions. ( 22 ) ASSUMING that there does not exist any contradictions as to the persons, who submitted the complaint, let us see, whether the timing of the submission of the complaint is beyond any place of doubt. All the four witnesses, referred to above, stated that the complaint was submitted at or around 7:30 p. m. , on 20-4-2001. It is not in dispute that ex. P-1 was prepared by PW. 9. In his chief- examination, PW. 9 stated as under:"on 20/21-4-2001 at about 2-00 a. m. P. W. I along with P. W. 2 came to the Police Station. P. W. 1 gave oral complaint about the murder of Narayanamma and I reduced the same into writing. "he has also stated that he registered the crime No. 46 of 2001, and soon thereafter, dispatched the original F. I. R. to the concerned magistrate. The F. I. R. was received by the concerned Magistrate, at 6:55 a. m. , on 21-4-2001. In the original F. I. R. , it is stated that the complaint was received at 2:00 hours. PW. 9 denied the suggestion that PWs. 1 and 2 have given complaint at 7:30 p. m. ( 23 ) FROM the evidence of PW. The F. I. R. was received by the concerned Magistrate, at 6:55 a. m. , on 21-4-2001. In the original F. I. R. , it is stated that the complaint was received at 2:00 hours. PW. 9 denied the suggestion that PWs. 1 and 2 have given complaint at 7:30 p. m. ( 23 ) FROM the evidence of PW. 9, it is clear that either PWs. l to 4 have deposed falsely about submission of complaint around 7:30 p. m. , on 20-4-2001, or that the complaint if any, given by them was suppressed. Either way, the benefit of doubt needs to be extended to the appellants. ( 24 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the criminal appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence ordered against the appellants is set aside. The accused shall be set at liberty forthwith, unless their present is required in any other cases.