G. YETHIRALUKU, J. ( 1 ) A-1 to A-4 and A-6 in S. C. No. 420 of 2000 on the file of the iii Additional Sessions Judge, Ananthapur, preferred this Appeal. Six accused were tried for the offences under Sections 148 and 302 read with 149 of I. P. C. ( 2 ) A-5 died, therefore, the case against him stood abated. ( 3 ) A-1 to A-4 and A-6 were convicted for the offence under Section 148 of I. P. C. and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. They were also convicted for the offence under Section 302 read with 149 of I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of rs. 500/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. ( 4 ) THE accused alleged to have formed into an unlawful assembly with the common object of killing the deceased by attacking him with deadly weapons at 7-00 AM on 31-12-1994 at maddela Cheruvu village. ( 5 ) THE case of the prosecution leading to the conviction of the appellants is briefly as follows:-PW-1 is the father, PWs. 2 and 3 are the uncles and PW-4 is the wife of the deceased. A-1. to A-3 are the paternal uncles of PW-4 and A-4 is the brother-in-law, of A-1 to A-3. The marriage of the deceased was fixed with his paternal aunts daughter and betrothal ceremony was also performed. Thereafter, A-1 to A-3 proposed the marriage alliance of the paternal aunts daughter of the deceased i. e. , PW-4, with A-4. PW-4 and her mother rejected the said proposal. About four months thereafter, the deceased and PW-4 eloped from the house and got married at Anjaneyaswami Temple. The marriage was also accepted by the elders of both the family. The deceased and PW-4 lead happy marital life in the house of PW-1. As PW-4 refused to marry A-4 and got married the deceased, the accused bore grudge against them and threatened to kill the deceased. On 31-12-1994 at about 5-00 AM, the deceased and pw-1 were going to their fields on a cart. PW-1 was walking behind the cart. On the way, A-1 to A-6 waylaid the cart and on the instigation of A-1, A-2 and A-3 dragged the deceased from the cart to the ground to a distance of 15 feet. On 31-12-1994 at about 5-00 AM, the deceased and pw-1 were going to their fields on a cart. PW-1 was walking behind the cart. On the way, A-1 to A-6 waylaid the cart and on the instigation of A-1, A-2 and A-3 dragged the deceased from the cart to the ground to a distance of 15 feet. Then A-4 and A-5 hacked him with an axe on his throat and A-6 beat him with a stick on his back. The accused threatened to kill PW-1. In the meanwhile, on hearing the cries, PWs. 2 and 3 rushed to the scene and on seeing them, the accused fled away from the scene. Thereafter, PW-1 lodged a complaint to the police covered by Ex. P-1 and it was registered as a crime. Later, the scene of offence was observed, rough sketch was prepared by the Investigating Agency and inquest was also held over the dead body of the deceased and thereafter, the dead body was sent to postmortem examination. After getting the opinion from the Postmortem Doctor and after arresting the accused, the police laid the charge sheet. ( 6 ) THE prosecution, in order to prove the guilt of the accused, examined PWs. 1 to 8 and marked Exs. P-1 to P-9 and m. Os. 1 to 6. No oral evidence was adduced on defence side, but ex. D-1 was marked. After completion of the trial, the lower court rendered the Judgment finding A-1 to A-6 guilty of the offence and accordingly, convicted and sentenced them as indicated above. The accused, being aggrieved by the Judgment of the lower Court, dated 29-10-2:004, preferred the present appeal challenging its validity and legality. ( 7 ) THE plea of the accused is one of denial, therefore, the point for consideration is: "whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and whether the Judgment of the lower Court is liable tobe set aside or modified?" ( 8 ) THE prosecution alleged that on account of PW-4 and her mother refusing the alliance with A-4 and as PW-4 married the deceased after eloping with him, the accused bore grudge against the deceased and accordingly, they waylaid the deceased and killed him. ( 9 ) THE defence version is one of denial, therefore, it has to be examined whether there is sufficient material placed by the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused that they were responsible for the death of the deceased. ( 10 ) EX. P-1 is the complaint given by PW-1. PW-1, the father of the deceased, mentioned iin Ex. P-1 that the deceased eloped with PW-4 and married her iin Anjaneyaswami temple of golla Gangavaram. He agreed for the said marriage, so also the mother of PW-4 and they were in cordial terms. On 31-12-1994 at about 6 AM, the deceased and himself were going to the field situated at a distance of 2 KMs from their village on a cart. In the middle, he got down from the cart and was going by walk at some distance from the cart. At 7-00 AM, when the deceased reached their field, all the accused came in a group armed with sticks and axes. A-1 instigated the other accused to kill the deceased. A-2 and A-3 caught hold of the deceased and threw him on the ground. A-6 beat the deceased with a stick. A-4 and a-5 hacked with axes on the throat of the deceased and the deceased died there itself. When he was running towards his son, the accused threatened to kill him also. Due to old disputes, the accused killed the deceased intentionally. Ex. P-1 complaint was given to the police and they registered it as Cr. No. 73 of 1994. ( 11 ) PW-1, in his evidence, stated that PW-4 is the daughter of Boya Madamma, his sister by courtesy. They fixed the marriage of PW-4 with the deceased. The bride and bridegroom also agreed to marry. A-1 to A-3 are the junior paternal uncles of PW-4. They proposed to marry PW-4 to A-4, who is the brother in law of A-1 to A-3. After fixing the marriage, they came back to their village. Later, he came to know that A-1 to A-4 approached the parents of PW-4 and asked them to give PW-4 in marriage with A-4, but they did not agree for it. Subsequently, the deceased eloped with PW-4 and got married at Anjaneyaswami Temple of Ganga Gollavaram. After the marriage, the deceased brought PW-4 to their house. They accepted the marriage and permitted to live together. Subsequently, the deceased eloped with PW-4 and got married at Anjaneyaswami Temple of Ganga Gollavaram. After the marriage, the deceased brought PW-4 to their house. They accepted the marriage and permitted to live together. A-1 to a-6 bore grudge against the deceased as he married PW-4 against their willing. On the date of offence, in the early morning, the deceased and himself were proceeding on their d. B. cart to plough the land. On the way, he was going behind the cart at a distance of 100 yards. A-l to A-6 waylaid the cart. A-1 raised voice saying "kill the deceased". A-2 and A-3 dragged the deceased from the cart to the ground towards the field of Chitra Muthyalappa. Ar3 beat the deceased with a stick on his back. A-4 and A-5 hacked the deceased on his throat with axes. A-4 hacked on the throat of the deceased two times. A-5 also hacked at the same place. He went towards the. deceased and raised cries. PWs. 2 and 3, who are cutting the grass in the nearby fields, came there. On seeing PWs. 2 and 3, the accused ran away. He submitted Ex. P-1 report and later the police recorded his statement. The cause for killing the deceased was the enmity of the accused on the deceased on the ground that he married PW-4 against their will. In the cross-examination, the stated that while proceeding to the filed, he got down from the cart to pass urine. His son was proceeding with the cart and later, he went behind the cart by walk at a distance of 100 feet. He further stated that he saw the accused surrounding the deceased and attacking him. He raised cries when the accused attacked the deceased. When he raised cries, PWs. 2 and 3 arrived at the scene. He went to the police Station at about 12-00 noon. He denied a suggestion that he gave false report against the accused and when the deceased was killed is not known to him. A-2 and A-3 dragged the deceased from the cart. He denied a suggestion that he is not an eyewitness to the incident and the accused did not kill the deceased. He denied a suggestion that the scene of offence is not visible from a distance of 100 yards as there was standing red gram crop in the fields. A-2 and A-3 dragged the deceased from the cart. He denied a suggestion that he is not an eyewitness to the incident and the accused did not kill the deceased. He denied a suggestion that the scene of offence is not visible from a distance of 100 yards as there was standing red gram crop in the fields. He also denied a suggestion PWs. 2 and 3 are not the eyewitnesses to the occurrence. He also denied a suggestion that the accused do not have any grudge against the deceased. He further stated in the cross-examination that most of the red gram crop was sowed along with the groundnut crop and in some fields the crop was dried up and there is no difficulty for observing the scene from a distance of 100 yards. ( 12 ) PW-2, a cousin brother of PW-1, deposed that the accused bore grudge against the deceased for marrying PW-4 against their will. On the date of offence, the deceased and pw-1 started from their house at about 5-00 AM to go to their field on a cart. At about 6-00 AM, PW-3 and himself were cutting the green grass near the filed of PW-1. He found the deceased going on the DB cart and PW-1 stopped the cart, passed urine and later, he was going behind the cart. After sometime, they heard the cries of PW-1. On hearing the cries, they saw A-1 to A-6 before the DB cart. A-1 raised cries to kill the deceased. A-2 and A-3 dragged the deceased from the cart. A-6 beat the deceased with a stick: on the back. A-4 hacked on the throat of the deceased with an axe and A-5 also hacked with an axe on the throat. PW-3 and himself went to the scene of offence. A-1 to A-6 threatened all of them if they go nearer. By saying so, all the accused went away towards eastern side. In the cross-examination, he stated that at the time of incident, he was cutting the grass on the eastern side of the land of one Chitra Muthyalappa. There was red gram grass at that area. The place of cutting green grass was at a distance of 150 feet towards east of the scene of offence. PW-1 got down from the DB cart for passing urine about 100 yards from the place where the accused waylaid the cart. There was red gram grass at that area. The place of cutting green grass was at a distance of 150 feet towards east of the scene of offence. PW-1 got down from the DB cart for passing urine about 100 yards from the place where the accused waylaid the cart. PW-1 was at a distance of 80 feet while the accused were attacking the deceased and from that place he raised cries. The red gram grass was short due to lack of rains. He touched the body of the deceased to see his condition. None of the clothes were stained with blood. Either pw-3 or himself tried to rescue the deceased as the accused threatened them to kill. He denied a suggestion that he is not an eyewitness to the incident and he was not cutting the green grass. He also denied a suggestion that the accused had no enmity with the deceased and they were not responsible for his death. ( 13 ) PW-3, a resident of the same village, deposed that on the date of offence in the early morning PW-2 and himself were cutting green grass towards east of the scene of offence. On the road, they heard the cries and found the deceased going on a DB cart at a distance of 150 feet. They also saw PW-1 coming behind the cart. They also saw the accused approaching the DB cart. They saw A-2 and A-3 dragging the deceased from the cart and further dragging him to the Chitra Muthyalappa land to a distance of 15 feet. A-6 beat the deceased with a stick on the back and the deceased raised cries. On hearing the cries, pw-2, and himself ran towards that direction. At the same time, he saw A-5 hacking the deceased with an axe and when the deceased tried to ward off the blow, he raised his right wrist and sustained a blow on his right wrist. He saw A-4 hacking the deceased with an axe on the throat twice. When PW-1 and himself was going to the scene, the accused threatened to kill them. While saying so, all the accused went away from the scene. He denied a suggestion that PW-2 and himself did not go to cut the green grass at a distance of 150 feet. He further stated that he witnessed the incident: on hearing the cries. When PW-1 and himself was going to the scene, the accused threatened to kill them. While saying so, all the accused went away from the scene. He denied a suggestion that PW-2 and himself did not go to cut the green grass at a distance of 150 feet. He further stated that he witnessed the incident: on hearing the cries. The scene of offence is at a distance of 2 KMs from the village. He denied a suggestion that PW-2 and himself did not see the incident and the accused never attacked the deceased and he is deposing falsehood. ( 14 ) PW-4, the wife of the deceased, deposed about the motive for the accused to attack the deceased and her evidence is corroborated with the evidence of PW-1. ( 15 ) THE evidence of PWs. l to 3 is consistent regarding the time, date and the place of attack and the manner in which the attack was made and the overt acts attributed to the accused. Though the defence counsel tried his best, he could not elicit any favourable information from the witnesses in the cross-examination. The evidence of PW-4 is also lending support regarding the motive for the accused to attack the deceased, which was spoken by PWs. l to 3. Regarding the overtacts, pws. 1 to 3 stated A-1 instigated the other accused to attack the deceased and A-2 and A-3 dragged him from the DB cart. A-4 to A-6 attacked the deceased with axes and stick respectively causing his instantaneous death. The time of offence is said to be at about 6-00 AM.- Though it was December 31, the sun rise may not be there by that time, but there will be sufficient light to observe the occurrence from a distance of 100 or 150 yards. The time given by the witnesses is approximate and no suggestion was given to any of the witnesses whether at the time of offence it was dark, therefore, we can safely conclude that the offence took place when there was sufficient light to observe the accused attacking the deceased. PWs. 1 to 4 spoken about the motive for the accused to kill the deceased. It is the specific version of the prosecution! that the alliance was fixed between the deceased and PW-4, but A-1 to A-3, after fixing of , the alliance, made a proposal that PW-4 should marry A-4. PWs. 1 to 4 spoken about the motive for the accused to kill the deceased. It is the specific version of the prosecution! that the alliance was fixed between the deceased and PW-4, but A-1 to A-3, after fixing of , the alliance, made a proposal that PW-4 should marry A-4. But the parents of PW-4 did not agree for it, therefore, the deceased and PW-4 went away from the house and got married in a temple, therefore, the accused bore grudge against the deceased for marrying PW-4 against their wishes. ( 16 ) PW-5 is an inquest panch. He deposed that the inquest panchas observed the dead body of the deceased and found dead and it is a homicidal death. ( 17 ) PW-6 is the Civil Assistant Surgeon, who conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and found the found injuries: 1. A deeply cut lacerated injury by heavy sharpedged weapon. The edges of the wound are cleanly cut. The wound extending from right sternomastoid muscle to left sternomoistiod muscle 7 x 2" 2 x2 cutting the lower edge of mandible trachea, oesophagus and hyoid bone cut on the left side and ribbon , muscles are cut from its incertions to mandible. 2. A lacerated injury 1" x x 1/2 on the front of right wrist. 3. An abrasion 1 /2 " x 3/4" x just above the right nipple. 4. Abrasion 2" above right to umbilicus 1" x 1/2". 5. An abrasion Vz" x Vz" on the front 1/2" above left wrist. 6. An abrasion 1/2" x 1/4" on the front 1 below right knee joint. 7. An abrasion 1/2" x 1/2" on the front of left knee joint. The doctor opined that the deceased would appear to have died due to shock and hemorrhage due to injury No. 1 and it might be caused with a weapon like axe. In the cross-examination, he stated that injury No. l is clean cut injury. It might be the result of the blow with a heavy sharp edged weapon. Injury Nos. 3 to 7 are small abrasion and could have been caused due to dragging in the fields. Injury No. 2 might have been sustained in the process of defence and to avert a blow on his neck. It might be the result of the blow with a heavy sharp edged weapon. Injury Nos. 3 to 7 are small abrasion and could have been caused due to dragging in the fields. Injury No. 2 might have been sustained in the process of defence and to avert a blow on his neck. ( 18 ) FROM the evidence of the doctor, it is clear that there was a cut injury on the neck, which might has been caused with an axe, injury No. 2 might be a defence injury and injury Nos. 3 to 7 might be due to dragging. ( 19 ) PW-7 is the Inspector of Police, who undertook the investigation, observed the scene of offence, got the rough sketch prepared, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and sent the body for postmortem examination. He also examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. ( 20 ) PW-8, the successor of PW-7, deposed that he arrested the accused and after completion of the investigation, he laid the charge sheet. ( 21 ) THE learned senior counsel, Sri C. Padmanabha reddy, appearing for the appellants submitted that the witnesses changed their version from time to time and there is no consistency in their evidence. So far as the version of the witnesses is concerned, though there are small discrepancies, the version the of witnesses is corroborating in all material particulars, therefore, we have no hesitation to accept the evidence of the witnesses as true and it is lending support to the prosecution version regarding the attack on the deceased. ( 22 ) THE learned senior counsel relied on the following judgments in support of his contentions: in KULDIP SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB,1992 CRI. L. J. 3592 the Supreme court held that: "though the inquest report cannot be treated as an evidence, but it can be looked into to test the veracity of the incident. " In the present case, the plea of the learned counsel is that the details regarding the incident were not mentioned in the inquest report, but it is not his; contention that it is a contrary version regarding the commission of the offence, therefore, the principle laid down in the above case is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In LINGAMPALLY VENKATESWARLU v. STATE OF A. P. , a division Bench of this Court held that: "the Court has to scrutinize the evidence and apply the overt act test in fixing the responsibility of each of the accused. " There is no dispute regarding the principle laid down by this Court in the above case. ( 23 ) THE learned counsel further submitted that the version given in Ex. P-1 is also varying from the version given by pws. 2 and 3. After comparing the version given in Ex. P-1 with the evidence given by PWs. 1 to 3, we are convinced that there is no discrepancy in the evidence, therefore, we do not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel that the contents of Ex. P-1 are varying with the evidence of PWs. 1 to 3. ( 24 ) THE learned counsel further submitted that during the inquest, the witnesses did not give the details regarding the manner of attack etc. and their version is different during inquest also. In the inquest report, only the gist of the version given by the witnesses will be recorded for the purpose of knowing the cause of death whether it is a homicidal death or suicidal death. The contents of the inquest report cannot be relied on except for the purpose of knowing the cause of death, therefore, we do not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel in this regard. ( 25 ) THE learned counsel further submitted that if at all there is a motive, it is only for A-4 and not to other accused, therefore, the other accused were unnecessarily roped up and foisted the case against them. ( 26 ) A-4 is the brother in law of A-1 to A-3. The prosecution version is that initially A-l to A-3 made a proposal to marry PW-4 to A-4. When their word was not respected by the parents of PW-4, naturally, they will have grouse against the deceased and A-5 and A-6, who were also residents of the same village, also joined hands with the accused in the commission of the offence. ( 27 ) THE learned counsel further submitted that there are discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses, therefore, there is any amount of doubt whether they witnessed the occurrence as narrated by the prosecution. ( 27 ) THE learned counsel further submitted that there are discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses, therefore, there is any amount of doubt whether they witnessed the occurrence as narrated by the prosecution. We have already observed that though there are any discrepancies in the evidence, they are not material and it will not affect the case of the prosecution in any way as the contradictions are not material in nature. ( 28 ) THE learned counsel further submitted that had PW-1 witnessed the incident, he would not have failed to rescue the deceased and to take the deceased into his lap, thereby the clothes of PW-1 would have stained with blood. In the absence of bloodstains on the clothes of PWs. 1 to 3,. there is a doubt whether they were witnesses to the occurrence. So far as PWs. 1 to 3 witnessing the incident is concerned, they saw the accused attacking the deceased from some distance. The accused were armed with weapons, therefore, in the normal circumstances, pws. 1 to 3 would not dare to reach the accused to prevent the accused from the commission of the offence and it is not the case of any of the witnesses that they lifted or held the body of. the deceased, therefore, there is no question of any bloodstains on the clothes of the witnesses. It cannot be said that since there are no bloodstains on the clothes of PWs. 1 to 3, they did not witness the occurrence. Though PW-1 is no other than the father of the deceased, PWs. 2 and 3 are independent witnesses and no motive was attributed to them to speak falsehood against the accused, therefore, there is no force in the contention of the learned counsel to disbelieve the evidence of PWs. 1 to 3. ( 29 ) THE learned counsel further submitted that PWs. 1 to 3 stated that A-4 and A-5 hacked the deceased with axes on his throat, but as per the Doctor there was only one injury on the throat, therefore, there is any amount of doubt whether they inflicted blows to the deceased and in the absence of corresponding injuries, there is a doubt whether all the accused participated in the commission of the offence. A-4 and A-5 were said to be attacked the deceased with axes. A-4 and A-5 were said to be attacked the deceased with axes. There was an extensive clean cut injury on the throat of the deceased. The possibility of both the accused hacking at the same place cannot be ruled out. It was not elicited from the doctor that there was no possibility of causing injury No. 1 with more than on blow, therefore, we do not find any force in thiis contention also raised by the learned counsel. ( 30 ) IT is alleged by the prosecution that PW-6 beat the deceased with a stick on the back, but there is no corresponding injury, therefore, there is any amount of doubt whether A-6 also participated in the commission of the offence. On verification of the postmortem report, it is clear that the Doctor did not notice any corresponding injuries on the back of the deceased, therefore, there is any amount of doubt whether A-6 also attacked the deceased with a stick, ( 31 ) FROM the evidence of PWs. 1 to 3, it is made out that a-4 and A-5 attacked the deceased with axes. They were attributed with specific overt acts therefore, A-4. cannot avoid the liability in the absence of A-5 also, as there were individual overtacts attributed to them. ( 32 ) SO far as A-1 is concerned, it is not the case of the witnesses that A-l was holding any weapon, therefore, there is any amount of doubt whether he instigated the other accused to attack the deceased to kill. ( 33 ) A-2 and A-3 were attributed that they dragged the deceased from the cart and from there to the field. PWs. 1 to 3 did not describe how A-2 and A-3 dragged the deceased from the cart and from there to the field. It is also not known whether they dragged him face downwards or upwards. If they dragg the deceased face upwards, there was no possibility of the deceased receiving any injuries on the knees. There were no injuries on the back of the deceased. In the light of the above circumstances, there is a doubt about the participation of A-2 and A-3 in dragging the deceased. According to the prosecution witnesses, A-2 and A-3 did not carry any weapons, therefore, there is a doubt whether there is common intention to attack the deceased. There were no injuries on the back of the deceased. In the light of the above circumstances, there is a doubt about the participation of A-2 and A-3 in dragging the deceased. According to the prosecution witnesses, A-2 and A-3 did not carry any weapons, therefore, there is a doubt whether there is common intention to attack the deceased. ( 34 ) SO far as A-6 is concerned, there was no corresponding injury, therefore, there is a doubt whether he attacked the deceased and he is also entitled for the benefit of doubt. Therefore, we are inclined to give the benefit of doubt to a-1 to A-3 and A-6. ( 35 ) THE lower Court, without going deep into the individual overtacts and the evidence, came to a conclusion that all the accused are liable for all the offences under which they were charged. After going through the evidence and the circumstances, we are inclined to modify the. Judgment by giving benefit of doubt to A-1 to A-3 and A-6. ( 36 ) IN the result, the Appeal is allowed in part. The conviction of A-1 to A-3 and A-6 for the offences under Sections 148 and 302 read with 149 of I. P. C. and the sentences imposed thereon are set aside. The conviction of A-4 for the offence under Section 148 of I. P. C. and the sentence imposed thereon is also set aside. The conviction of A-4 for the offence under section 302 of I. P. C. and the sentence imposed thereon is confirmed. A-1 to A-3 and A-6 shall be set at liberty forthwith, if they are not required in any other crime.