P. , HYDERABAD ( 1 ) A-Q to A-7 and A-10 were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 148 of I. P. C. They were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. A-l to A-5 were also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I. P. C. They have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. They have been fined Rs. 1,000/- each, tin default, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months. A-l to A-5 were also convicted for the offence punishable under Section. 302 read with 149 of I. P. C. On this count also they were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. A-6 and A-10 were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I. P. C. and were given life imprisonment and fined Rs. 1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, they have to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. On another count, A-6 and A-10 were Further convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 149 of I. P. C. On this count also they were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, and in default, they have to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. A--7 was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I. P. C. and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and fined Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he has to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months. This is a case, which was a result of the murder of one chalipirala Shiva Shankar Reddy (deceased No. 1) and Lakkireddy gopal Reddy (deceased No. 2 ). After the trial and conviction, accused filed two appeals in this Court, being Criminal Appeal Nos. 2643 and 2644 of 2004, while the State preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1925 of 2005. The matter was heard by a Division Bench comprising of smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari and Sri Justice K. C. Bhanu. Smt. Justice t. Meena Kumari was of the opinion that prosecution has failed to establish the case against the accused therefore, she allowed Criminal appeal Nos. 2643 and 2644 of 2004 preferred by the accused, and dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 1925 of 2005 preferred by the State. Justice T. Meena Kumari and Sri Justice K. C. Bhanu. Smt. Justice t. Meena Kumari was of the opinion that prosecution has failed to establish the case against the accused therefore, she allowed Criminal appeal Nos. 2643 and 2644 of 2004 preferred by the accused, and dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 1925 of 2005 preferred by the State. Sri Justice K. C. Bhanu dismissed all the three appeals and confirmed the conviction and sentences on the accused. In this view of the matter, Honble the Chief Justice, in terms of Section 392 of Cr. P. C. , ordered the matter to be listed before this Court. ( 2 ) I have heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned Public Prosecutor at length, have perused the record as well as the opinions of Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari and Sri Justice k. C. Bhanu. Facts have been narrated in both the opinions, but for the purpose of disposal of these cases, brief facts are necessary to be mentioned. ( 3 ) CRIMINAL Appeal No. 2643 of 2004 is filed by A-7 and Criminal appeal No. 2644 of 2004 is filed by A-l to A-6 and A-10. Criminal appeal No. 1925 of 2005 is filed toy the State, which is mainly against a-7 and the main grievance was that the trial Court had erred in not convicting A-7 for causing the death of deceased No. l Chalipirala shiva Shankar Reddy. Deceased No. 1 Chalipirala Shiva Shankar Reddy belonged to devagudi village, Jammalamadugu Mandal of Kadapa District, and deceased No. 2 Lakkireddy Gopal Reddy was a resident of jammalamadugu. Both of them were murdered, according to the prosecution, in RTC bus stand of Shadnagar in the limits of Shadnagar police Station. A-1 to A-10 were residents of Jammalamadugu and surrounding villages. They were close followers of A-1 1. A-1 toa-4 are brothers, A-5 is brother-in-law of A-11, A-6 is cousin of A-5, A-7 is cousin of A-11, A-8 and A-9 are brothers and A-10 is close follower of A-11. A-11 was sitting MLA of Jammalamadugu assembly Constituency and beloraged to Telugu Desam Party. The deceased No. l and A-l were originally lieutenants of A-11, and were convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life along with three others in Crime Nos. A-11 was sitting MLA of Jammalamadugu assembly Constituency and beloraged to Telugu Desam Party. The deceased No. l and A-l were originally lieutenants of A-11, and were convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life along with three others in Crime Nos. 78 and 79 of 1999 for the offence under section 302 of I. P. C. Appea is pending in the Supreme Court and they are on bail. In the year 1984, deceased No. 1 fell out from A-11 and joined Congress-I Party, causing embarrassment to A-1 to A-11. Each party was trying to win over their political opponents. Some times they were using ill-force. They often used to come to clashes and at times the law and order machinery had to take security measures against them. A-l and deceased No. l, along with their supporters, were respondents in Crime Nos. 77 and 78 of 1990 under section 107 Cr. P. C. ( 4 ) ON 20th of August 1990, the followers of deceased No. 1 murdered one Ashwartha Reddy who) was the brother-in-law of A-1, when he was travelling in a bus. Case was registered, which was under investigation. It was the prosecutions case that A-1, along with his associates, were making attempts to liquidate deceased No. 1 and his cousin Ramanjula Reddy. After the change of Government in the state, deceased Nos. l and 2 came to limelight while the accused got eclipsed. In this background, it was averred by the prosecution that a-1 to A-11 conspired to liquidate deceased Nos. 1 and 2. Deceased nos. 1 and 2 had come to Hyderabad on 04. 12. 1990 and had stayed at siddhartha Hotel in room No. 511. A-11 got to know the presence of deceased persons in the city. He kept Watch on the movements of the deceased and thereafter, when the deceased persons boarded RTC bus no. AEZ 4423 from Hyderabad to Proddutur, to go back to their village, A-1 to A-10 went to Shadnagar bus stand. They armed themselves with hunting sickles,sticks and knives and with common object of doing away with both the deceased persons, waited tor them at Shadnagar bus stand. The deceased persons alighted from the bus at Shadnagar bus stand, had snacks at a hotel and while they were returning to the bus, they were attacked. A-11 was near the scene of offence with two jeeps. The deceased persons alighted from the bus at Shadnagar bus stand, had snacks at a hotel and while they were returning to the bus, they were attacked. A-11 was near the scene of offence with two jeeps. A-1 to A-5 attacked deceased No. 1 in the verandah of Shadnagar bus stand, while A-6 to A-10 and others chased deceased No. 2 and attacked him. The accused persons caused multiple injuries to both the persons, who succumbed to injuries at the spot. Thereafter, the investigation started. ( 5 ) ON the basis of these allegations, different charges were framed against the accused persons. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. It may, however, be mentioned at this place that A-8, A-9 and A-11 died during the pendency of proceedings and the case against them got abated. Case against A-7 was withdrawn by government by issuing Order G. O. Rt. No. 1442, dated 21. 06. 1996, but later on, it was stated that this Order was set aside by the Court and A-7 also faced the trial. ( 6 ) THE prosecution in all examined 22 witnesses and exhibited 31 documents. Relevant portions of statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C. for rthe purposes of omissions, additions, and contradictions, were marked by defence as Exhibits D-1 to D-22. Although the testimony of the witnesses has been recorded in detail by the two learned Judges who heard the appeals in the first instance, it will be necessary for this Court also to go through the evidence. Before doing so, it may be pertinent to note that the presence or absence of the projected eyewitnesses at the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence would be vital for this case, because, whole case depends on the credibility of these eyewitnesses who are PWs. 2 to 4. If the testimony of these witnesses is believed, then prosecution perhaps has to succeed in the case. But the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants submits that their testimony is not trustworthy as they are planted witnesses. This argument would be tested after the: evidence of these witnesses is analyzed. It may also be pointed out: at this juncture that according to the prosecution, the occurrence took place at Shadnagar bus stand. But the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants submits that their testimony is not trustworthy as they are planted witnesses. This argument would be tested after the: evidence of these witnesses is analyzed. It may also be pointed out: at this juncture that according to the prosecution, the occurrence took place at Shadnagar bus stand. There were 42 passengers travelling in the bus, but only three of them were examined by the Police, and according to the learned senior counsel, these three persons were closely associated with the deceased persons. Whether they were close to the deceased persons or not, would be seen after analyzing their testimony, but it is an admitted fact that there were 42 passengers travelling in the bus in which the deceased persons were travelling, but only three of them were examined as witnesses. There are other discrepancies in the case of the prosecution, according to the learned senior counsel appearing for appellants, which make the prosecution story highly doubtful and unbelievable. ( 7 ) PW-1 submitted that he was working as Branch Postmaster of harivaram village. K. Ram Subtoa Reddy (LW-1) was related to him. This K. Ram Subba Reddy was also killed in the year 1992. He also knew Shiva Shankar Reddy and Jammalamadugu Gopal Reddy. Shiva Shankar Reddy and Jammalamadugu Gopal Reddy were killed in Shadnagar bus stand on 05. 12. 1990 at about 10 p. m. The witnesss relatives Pedda Veera Reddy, Chinna Veera Reddy and Shankar reddy were convicted in a munder case and sentenced to suffer 20 years imprisonment. He and Ram Subba Reddy wanted to go to hyderabad to prefer an appeal against the sentence. On 3rd of december 1990, he and Ram Subba Reddy took the case file at kurnool and travelled during the night in a bus and reached hyderabad next day in the early morning. They went to the house of one Bal Timma Reddy, who was an Advocate and from there, they went to the High Court and met Sri Padmanabha Reddy, senior advocate in the High Court and handed over the case to him. From there, he, Ram Subba Reddy and Bal Timma Reddy went to the central Jail to see his relatives who were in jail. They had an interview with the relations and came out of jail. Then, they again went to the house of Bal Timma Reddy. From there, he, Ram Subba Reddy and Bal Timma Reddy went to the central Jail to see his relatives who were in jail. They had an interview with the relations and came out of jail. Then, they again went to the house of Bal Timma Reddy. On that night, he and Ram subba Reddy slept in the house of Bal Timma Reddy after having dinner. On the next day i. e. on 05. 12. 1,990, he and Ram Subba Reddy went to Central Jail. On that day, after having met their relatives in the jail, they came to the RTC bus stand, got their seats reserved in a bus scheduled to leave Hyderabad at 8. 30 p. m. He booked a seat for himself to go to Kurnool. Ram Subba Reddy booked a seat to go to jammalamadugu. Then they went to Secunderabad for shopping. They purchased certain articles from Secunderabad. Then they went to the house of Bal Nagi Reddy, who was his relative. There, they had lunch. At about 8. 30 p. m. , they came to RTC bus stand to board the bus. Both of them boarded the; bus and sat in their respective seats. When the bus was about to move, two persons entered into the bus. They gave letters to the Conductor. Ram Subba Reddy (LW-1)went to the said two persons and talked to them. Then the bus moved from the bus stand. Ram Subba Reddy introduced the two persons to the witness and told him that they were Gopal Reddy and Shiva shankar Reddy. After crossing the city of Hyderabad, the Driver switched off the lights inside the bus. Then he slept. After some time, he heard hue and cry. He woke up and found that the bus stopped at Shadnagar bus stand. He got down from the bus. He saw some people running away posing hunting sickles and sticks. By the time he woke up, some of the passengers had already got down from the bus including said Ram Subba Reddy. Conductor came and asked him to board the bus. Ram Subba Reddy asked the Conductor to stop the bus since some persons informed him about killing of Shiva shankar Reddy and Gopal Reddy. The bus was stopped. Then they sat in the said bus. Police took Ram Subba Reddy to the Police station. Conductor came and asked him to board the bus. Ram Subba Reddy asked the Conductor to stop the bus since some persons informed him about killing of Shiva shankar Reddy and Gopal Reddy. The bus was stopped. Then they sat in the said bus. Police took Ram Subba Reddy to the Police station. Police and RTC officials came, checked the tickets from the passengers and verified as to which passenger was going to which place. The Police asked him and said Ram Subba Reddy to stay back in Shadnagar. They stayed back. The RTC officials, after verifying the tickets, refunded their money. Then Police allowed them to go from Shadnagar. He was examined by the Police in Shadnagar and subsequently, the CID Police also enquired from him. After he got down from the bus, he went to the place where dead bodies of Shiva shankar Reddy and Gopal Reddy were kept. He saw their dead bodies at that place. Some of the passengers of the bus also came and saw the dead bodies. The dead body of Shiva Shankar Reddy was lying near a kirana shop in the bus stand and the dead body of Gopal reddy was lying by the right side of the bus. ( 8 ) THIS witness, according to the learned senior counsel for the defence, has not stated anything against the accused persons. According to this witness, he was sleeping in the bus when he heard the cries and after waking up, he only saw some people running. Then he saw the dead bodies. In his cross-examination, he stated that after he woke up, he enquired from the persons who were in the bus as to why there was hue and cry. The said persons told him that Shiva shankar Reddy and Gopal Reddy had been killed. It is submitted by the learned counsel for appellants that after the bus had stopped to enable the passengers to have their refreshment, the Conductor came to him and asked him and others to board the bus. Then Ram Subba reddy asked the Conductor to stop the bus since some persons had informed that two passengers had been killed. It is submitted by the learned counsel for appellants that after the bus had stopped to enable the passengers to have their refreshment, the Conductor came to him and asked him and others to board the bus. Then Ram Subba reddy asked the Conductor to stop the bus since some persons had informed that two passengers had been killed. It would show that even when the Conductor and Driver decided to move away from shadnagar, it was not known to them that two passengers had been killed and it was only Ram Subba Reddy, who informed the conductor about the occurrence. He also stated that his statement was recorded by the Police in the same night and he was in the Police station for two or three hours. PW-2 stated that he was working in a quarry and he knew d. Shiva Shankar Reddy. D. Shiva Shankar Reddy had already died. ( 9 ) HE was killed. He also knew Jammalamadugu Gopal Reddy. He was also killed. He knew D. Shiva Shankar Reddy for 15 years prior to his death and Gopal Reddy was known to him for three years prior to his death. One Subadramma was the wife of Gopal Reddy. She had contested elections for the post of President of Mandal Praja Parishad. One Laxmidevamma wife of Siva Reddy had contested against the wife of Gopal Reddy. About 14 years before, they were killed at shadnagar bus stand during the night at about 10 p. m. His brother chalapathi had studied up to B. A. He went to Shiva Shankar Reddy with a request to arrange a job for his brother, two days before his death. Shiva Shankar Reddy was living in Devagudi. When he went to the house of Shiva Shankar Reddy, one Doodekula Kullayappa, gayub Sab and Mahanandi Ramulu were also present there. Shiva shankar Reddy told him that he knew B. Varadarajulu Reddy, ML A, shivananda Reddy, Kadapa ML A and Pulivendula Rajasekhara Reddy and asked him to come to Hyderabad. He told him that he would recommend his brothers case. He told him that he was going to hyderabad on the next day and asked the witness to come to hyderabad on the next day. He told him that he would recommend his brothers case. He told him that he was going to hyderabad on the next day and asked the witness to come to hyderabad on the next day. The: witness went to his house and after arranging the money needed for the travel, he went to the bus stand in jammalamadugu at 8 p. m. on the next day to go to Hyderabad. At the bus stand, he met Mahanandi Ramulu (not examined), Doodekula kullayappa (PW-4) and Gayub Sab (PW-3 ). They were also going to hyderabad for the same purpose for which he was going i. e. they were also trying to secure jobs for their relatives. Then he and the other three persons i. e. Mahanandi Ramulu, PW-3 and PW-4 boarded the bus at about 9 p. m. On the next day morning at 6 a. m. , they reached hyderabad. Then PW-4 took saman of daughter of deceased Shiva shankar Reddy and went away. Gayub Sab (PW-3) left the bus stand to go to the residence of Shivananda Reddy. The witness and mahanandi Ramulu went to the ML A quarters. They went to the quarters of Varadarajulu Reddy MLA. They found Sunnapuralapalli subba Rao outside the said MLA quarters. They enquired the said subba Rao about Varadarajulu Reddy, MLA. They were informed by subba Rao that the said MLA was mot available in the quarters and that he would be returning after some time. They were waiting in the mla quarters. Then PW-4 also came there. After PW-4 came there, varadarajulu Reddy, MLA also came. At that time, they saw A-l venkat Ram Reddy and some others going out of the said MLA quarters campus. After some time, Devagudi Shiva Shankar Reddy, jammalamadugu Gopal Reddy, B. Laxmaiah and Singam Reddy Pulla reddy came to the MLA quarters in two autos. Shiva Shankar reddy asked Kullayappa whether he had brought the samans and handed over the same to his daughter. He told him that the samans had been handed over to his daughter. Shiva Shankar Reddy then asked him whether Varadarajulu Reddy, MLA had come. The witness informed him that the MLA had come and had gone into his quarters. Then shiva Shankar Reddy asked him and Mahanandi Ramulu to come with him. Then they went to the quarters of Varadarajulu Reddy, mla. Shiva Shankar Reddy then asked him whether Varadarajulu Reddy, MLA had come. The witness informed him that the MLA had come and had gone into his quarters. Then shiva Shankar Reddy asked him and Mahanandi Ramulu to come with him. Then they went to the quarters of Varadarajulu Reddy, mla. Shiva Shankar Reddy told Varadarajulu Reddy about providing a job to the witnesss brother Chalapathi. Varadarajulu reddy wrote name of his brother and also his name on a paper and varadarajulu Reddy assured that he would secure a job for the witnesss brother. He came out of the quarters of Varadarajulu reddy. After some time, Mahanandi Ramulu also came out from the said quarters after talking with Varadarajulu Reddy about his affair. After half an hour, both Shiva Shankar Reddy and Jammalamadugu gopal Reddy came out of the quarters of Varadarajulu Reddy. Shiva shankar Reddy asked them whether they want to go back to their village. Shiva Shankar Reddy. , deceased No. l, gave money to purchase tickets for PWs. 3 and 4. Then the witness, Subba Rao, mahanandi Ramulu and PW-4 went to the bus stand. They gave money to Subba Rao to get tickets and they themselves went to have tea. Said Subba Rao purchased tickets in advance for going to jammalamadugu by a bus which was scheduled to leave at 8. 30 p. m. on the same day. After taking the said tickets, he, Subba Rao, PW-4 and Mahanandi Ramulu went to city. Subba Rao left on his own work. Then, he, PW-4 and Mahanandi Ramulu went around the city and reached the bus stand at 8 p. m. After taking food, they were waiting at the bus stand when they saw Gayub Sab (PW-3) in the bus stand. Then all the four persons boarded the bus. When the bus was about to leave, Shiva Shankar Reddy, deceased No. l and Gopal reddy, deceased No. 2 also came and boarded the bus. Said Shiva shankar Reddy and Gopal Reddy asked them whether they were boarding the same bus. They also talked to few other passengers. ( 10 ) THE bus started. After crossing the city, the lights of the bus were put off. Then he slept. When the bus reached Shadnagar, it was stopped and lights were put on and the Conductor asked the passengers to have dinner. They also talked to few other passengers. ( 10 ) THE bus started. After crossing the city, the lights of the bus were put off. Then he slept. When the bus reached Shadnagar, it was stopped and lights were put on and the Conductor asked the passengers to have dinner. All the passengers who wanted to have food, got down from the bus. He himself, Mahanandi Ramulu and Gayub Sab got down from the bus for the purpose of drinking water and to go to the toilet. ( 11 ) THE lights in the bus stand were on. At that time, one Pulla Reddy (not examined) and Laxmaiah (PW-5) came to them and talked to them. He went to answer calls of nature behind the bus. After he eased himself, he heard "kottandi, narakandi". After hearing the said cries, he ran to the bus. By the time [tie went there, he saw A-l to A-4 hacking Shiva Shankar Reddy with hunting sickles and A-5 stabbing shiva Shankar Reddy with a knife below the chest. Then, A-5, A-7, one Sambashiva Reddy and A-8 to A-10 chased Gopal Reddy. Then n. Visweshwar Reddy, Sambashiva Reddy and A-8 to A-10 hacked gopal Reddy with hunting sickles. A-7 stabbed Gopal Reddy on the back with a knife. After chasing the said Gopal Reddy by the above persons, they hacked Gopal Reddy by the side of the drivers door of the bus. Due to fear, he got into the: bus and sat. Then they raised hu? and cry stating that they killed two important persons and ran away. After some time, PWs. 3 and 4 came to the bus. They were weeping. ( 12 ) THEY told that Shiva Shankar Reddy and Gopal Reddy were killed. He told them that he had also witnessed the incident of killing the said two persons. After some time, Police came. They got down from the bus and went to the dead bodies of Shiva Shankar Reddy and Gopal reddy and saw the dead bodies. They found two hunting sickles by the side of the dead body of Gopal Reddy. M. Os. 1 and 2 are the said hunting sickles, which were found at the dead body of Gopal Reddy. Then the Police asked them to board into the bus. They found two hunting sickles by the side of the dead body of Gopal Reddy. M. Os. 1 and 2 are the said hunting sickles, which were found at the dead body of Gopal Reddy. Then the Police asked them to board into the bus. After they boarded the bus, Police, Conductor and the Controller came into the bus and verified their tickets and also noted down their names and addresses and then they got down from the bus. Again the Circle Inspector of police called them one by one and made enquiries. Then he narrated what had happened and what he [had seen. The Inspector wrote what he said. After writing down the statements, the Circle Inspector asked him to go to the bus. By that time it was about 3 a. m. on 06. 12. 1990. The bus again started at 3 a. m. and they went to their native places. After four days, CBCID Police came to Police Station, jammalamadugu and they sent ;a word for the witness. Accordingly he went to the Police Station. They again recorded his statement. He had narrated what had happened and what he had witnessed. He knew a-l to A-7 and A-10 who were present in the Court. Said persons had participated in the incident on that day and killed both the deceased. ( 13 ) IN his cross-examination by the counsel appearing for A-l to a-6 and A-10, he stated that at the first instance he was examined by the Circle Inspector of Police, Shadnagar. He denied the suggestion that he was examined for the: first time by the Inspector of Police, shadnagar after four days of the incident. He had not stated before the Police when he was examined by the Inspector of Police, shadnagar, as in Ex. D-5. In his statement recorded under Section 161 cr. P. C. , he had stated, "on 04. 12. 1990 i. e. one week ago on Tuesday at about 9 o clock myself along with Kanneluru Gayubsab, kullayappa, Mahanandi Ramulu four altogether boarded the bus at jammalamadugu bus stop. " According to the learned counsel for the appellants, this shows that the statement of this witness was recorded one week after the occurrence because, this witness had stated before the Police, "on 04. 12. 1990 i. e. one week ago on Tuesday". Therefore, whatever he had stated, should not be believed. " According to the learned counsel for the appellants, this shows that the statement of this witness was recorded one week after the occurrence because, this witness had stated before the Police, "on 04. 12. 1990 i. e. one week ago on Tuesday". Therefore, whatever he had stated, should not be believed. Perhaps this witness was planted and his statement was recorded for the first time after one week of the occurrence. He also submitted that it was true that there was a case against him along with deceased Shiva Shankar Reddy and his two sons for attacking Naripi Subba Reddy and three others. He was also an accused in a case of beiing in possession of 450 country made bombs. But he stated that the case ended in acquittal. He could not give Surnames of all the accused. He went to a distance of two baras behind the bus to answer the call of nature. When he was engaged in easing himself, he did not know where others like laxmaiah, Singam Reddy Pulla Reddy, Kullayappa and Mahanandi ramulu and Gayub Sab were staying. When he witnessed the occurrence, he also did not know where other persons were. When he went back to the bus and sat in his seat, then he saw three persons gayub Sab, Kullayappa and Mahanandi Ramulu entering the bus. When they entered the bus, the Conductor was not available in the seat. Other passengers were already in the bus. The Conductor came into the bus after some time. ( 14 ) THE learned senior counsel submits that this shows clearly that this witness did no: see the actual occurrence as he had neither seen laxmaiah, Singam Reddy Pulla Reddy, Kullayappa nor Mahanandi ramulu or Gayub Sab. Therefore, there is a doubt whether this person had at all seen the occurrence, as the occurrence appears to have taken place, even according to this witness, when he had gone from the bus for easing himself. Further, this witness stated, "after the Conductor boarded into the bus, the driver started the bus. Ram subba Reddy told the Conductor of the said bus that Shiva Shankar reddy and Gopal Reddy were, not in the bus and the bus to be stopped. Then the bus was stopped. Thereafter, we got down from the bus and went to the place of the dead bodies and saw the dead bodies. Ram subba Reddy told the Conductor of the said bus that Shiva Shankar reddy and Gopal Reddy were, not in the bus and the bus to be stopped. Then the bus was stopped. Thereafter, we got down from the bus and went to the place of the dead bodies and saw the dead bodies. ( 15 ) AGAIN we boarded into the bus. " The learned senior counsel for appellants submits that after having their dinner, witness and conductor had also boarded the bus, according to this witness, Ram subba Reddy told the Conductor of the bus that two passengers Shiva shankar Reddy and Gopal Reddy were not in the bus, therefore, the bus was stopped. That shows, this witness did not know even at that time that Shiva Shankar Reddy and Gopal Reddy had died. It is also submitted by the learned senior counsel that this statement of the witness contradicts his earlier version. Had the occurrence taken place as was suggested by this witness, then everybody in the bus would have known that murder of these two persons had taken place, he accepted that he did not go to the Police Station to give a report. He stated that he could not give any reasons as to why he did not report the matter to the Police. In the cross-examination by the counsel for A-7, he stated that within five minutes, the whole occurrence was completed. After witnessing the incident, he got scared and he had apprehensions about the safety of his life. Although he got scared, yet, he did not run away from the place. He was on the back of the bus when he witnessed the incident. There were no transactions between him amd A-7. He had not stated any descriptive particulars of A-7 to Police. He had not stated to the police that he knew A-7. There were about 15 persons who participated in the crime. None of the assailants beat deceased No. l or deceased No. 2 with sticks. By the time he came to board the bus, all the buses, which were stationed in the bus stand, left hurriedly. After he heard hue and cry, he came to the bus and witnessed the incident. The Inspector of Police, Shadnagar examined him and recorded his statement. The Inspector of CBCID also examined him and recorded his statement. By the time he came to board the bus, all the buses, which were stationed in the bus stand, left hurriedly. After he heard hue and cry, he came to the bus and witnessed the incident. The Inspector of Police, Shadnagar examined him and recorded his statement. The Inspector of CBCID also examined him and recorded his statement. He did not think it proper to wait at shadnagar till the inquest and other formalities over the dead bodies of Shiva Shankar Reddy and Gopal reddy were completed. He did not also think it proper to give a report to the Police. The hunting sickles M. Os. l and 2 were available in the market. There were no specific identification marks on M. Os. l and 2. He had not stated before the Police that he could identify the said sickles. ( 16 ) THE statement of this witness is tried to be assailed by the learned counsel for the defence on various grounds. This witnesshad stated that Subba Rao purchased tickets for them to go to jammalamadugu, but actually the tickets purchased were for some other destination and not for Jammalamadugu. It is also stated by the learned counsel that the statements under Section 161 Cr. P. C. which were recorded by the Police,, Shadnagar immediately after the occurrence, were not produced before the Court, and these statements were the earlier statements made by the projected eyewitnesses, but the statements which were produced along with the charge sheet before the Court are copies of the statements recorded by the CBCID when the case was handed over to CBCID. If both the investigating agencies examined these witnesses under Section 161 Cr. P. C. , then it was imperative for the prosecution to produce both the statements. The learned counsel for defence submits that as a matter of fact, no statements were recorded on the date of occurrence by the Shadnagar police because, these witnesses were not available and they were only planted witnesses and their statements, for the first time, were recorded by the CBCID when the case was handed over to them after several days of the occurrence. ( 17 ) PW-3 is another eyewitness. He stated that he knew A-l to A-7 and A-10. He was a resident of Kanyanur. He knew the deceased persons also. He knew K. Ram Subba Reddy. ( 17 ) PW-3 is another eyewitness. He stated that he knew A-l to A-7 and A-10. He was a resident of Kanyanur. He knew the deceased persons also. He knew K. Ram Subba Reddy. The deceased were killed in Shadnagar bus stand 14 years before during the night at 10 p. m. He knew who killed the said persons as he had witnessed the incident. Accused persons killed them. He identified the accused present in the Court. He stated that he: was convicted in a murder case and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment. He was accused of having killed his brother-in-law Rahmatullah. While he was undergoing life imprisonment, he came out on parole in 1990. While he was in parole, he went to Shiva Shankar Reddy of Devagudi village to get extension of parole for one month. He gave an application to that effect to Shiva Shankar Reddy. Twoi days prior to the death of Shiva shankar Reddy, he went to his house and asked to get extension of parole. Shiva Shankar Reddy asked him to come to Hyderabad on the next day as he was going to Hyderabad. When he went to the house of Shiva Shankar Reddy, he found there PW-4 and Mahanandi ramulu. Vijaya Venkatramana also came to the house of Shiva shankar Reddy. On that day, he went to his house. On the next day at 8. 30 p. m. , he went to Jammalarnadugu bus stand to go to hyderabad in a bus scheduled to leave at 9 p. m. When he reached the bus stand, he noticed Gopal Reddy, PW-2, Kullayappa and mahanandi Ramulu in the bus stand. They all boarded the bus bounded to Hyderabad. Bus started at 9 p. m. from Jammalamadugu. ( 18 ) ON the next day morning at 6 a. m. , they reached Hyderabad. Then he went to the house of Kandula Shivananda Reddy, MLA (PW-7 ). On the same day at 2. 30 p. m. , while he was in the residence of Kandula shivananda Reddy in Hyderabad, Shiva Shankar Reddy, Gopal reddy, Pedda Pulla Reddy and Pedda Laxmaiah came in autos to the house of Kandula Shivananda Reddy. Then he gave representation for extension of parole to the said Kandula Shivananda Reddy. On the same day at 2. 30 p. m. , while he was in the residence of Kandula shivananda Reddy in Hyderabad, Shiva Shankar Reddy, Gopal reddy, Pedda Pulla Reddy and Pedda Laxmaiah came in autos to the house of Kandula Shivananda Reddy. Then he gave representation for extension of parole to the said Kandula Shivananda Reddy. Then kandula Shivananda Reddy told him that C. M. was not available in tne station and asked him to come again some time after. Shankar reddy told him that he had given money to purchase tickets to kullayappa and asked him to go to his village. Then he went to RTC bus stand, Hyderabad at 8 p. m. There he found PW-2, Kullayappa and Mahanandi Ramulu in the RTC bus stand. Then they boarded the bus to go to their village. When the said bus was about to move, shiva Shankar Reddy and Gopal Reddy came and boarded the same bus. After crossing the outskirts of Hyderabad, the lights in the bus were put off. At about 10 p. m. , the bus reached Shadnagar. The lights were put on. Then the Conductor asked the passengers whether they could have dinner. All the passengers got down in the said bus stand. He, PW-2, Kullayappa ;and Mahanandi Ramulu got down from the bus for the purpose of drinking water. In the meanwhile Pulla reddy and Pedda Laxmaiah came to them and talked to them. He heard hue and cry as "champandi, Narakandi". After hearing hue and cry, he looked towards the place where from the voices were coming. ( 19 ) HE witnessed A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4 hacking Shiva Shankar Reddy with hunting sickles and A-5 stabbing the said Shiva Shankar Reddy. They raised hue and cry along with some others and chased Gopal Reddy. Then he and other passengers ran towards the back of the bus. Then he witnessed A-6, A-8, A-9 and A-10 hacking Gopal Reddy with hunting sickles and A-7 stabbing the said Gopal Reddy with a knife on his back. Then due to fear, they came to their bus and boarded their bus. The accused went away from that place through out-gate of the bus stand. Then he witnessed A-6, A-8, A-9 and A-10 hacking Gopal Reddy with hunting sickles and A-7 stabbing the said Gopal Reddy with a knife on his back. Then due to fear, they came to their bus and boarded their bus. The accused went away from that place through out-gate of the bus stand. After some time, when Police came to the bus stand, he got down from the bus and went to the place where the dead bodies of shiva Shankar Reddy and Gopal Reddy were lying and saw the dead bodies. He found two hunting sickles by the side of the dead body of gopal Reddy. M. Os. 1 and 2 are the hunting sickles, which were found by the side of the dead body of Gopal Reddy at that time. Then the conductor and Police asked them to get into the bus. The Police and conductor wrote down the names and addresses and also checked the tickets in possession of the passengers. They were called to the control room one by one where he found the Police officials in the said room and the Police officials enquired about their names and addresses. The Police enquired from him in the control room about the details of the occurrence and he stated to the Police what he had witnessed. Then they came back to the bus stand and boarded the bus. At 3 a. m. on 06. 12. 1990, the said bus was allowed to go from shadnagar bus stand. After four days of it, the CBCID Police came to jammalamadugu Police Station, enquired him and recorded his statement. ( 20 ) IN his cross-examination, he stated that he was examined by the police and he was also examined by the CBCID Police but two statements of the witness recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C. , are not available on record. He also stated that even though he was close to the deceased, he had no enmity with the accused, but he did not go to the rescue of the deceased or raised hue and cry due to fear. He stated that in his presence, the Police did not seize M. O. I or M. 0. 2. till they left the bus stand at 3 a. m. , the bodies were lying in the bus stand. On 04. 12. He stated that in his presence, the Police did not seize M. O. I or M. 0. 2. till they left the bus stand at 3 a. m. , the bodies were lying in the bus stand. On 04. 12. 1990 in the morning he got his seat reserved, but he did not remember which seat was allotted to him. He did not even remember whether he was allotted a seat in the rear side or front side of the bus. But he stated that PW-2, Mahanandi Ramulu and kullayappa also sat by the side of him in the bus. He had kept the tickets in his pocket, but afterwards, when he returned to the village, he lost the ticket. He was convicted for a case of murder. He had preferred an appeal to the High Court, where he had lost and he had preferred appeal to the Supreme Court. He denied that he had not stated to the Police that he knew Ram Subba Reddy (A-7 ). He did not remember whether he had given any descriptive particulars of Ram subba Reddy. ( 21 ) PW-4 is again a witness who ctlaims to be an eyewitness. He stated that he knew all the accused. He knew the deceased also. According to him, they were killed 14 years before in Shadnagar bus stand. He had witnessed the incident. Like PWs. 2 and 3, he also stated that two days before the occuirrence, he went to the house of shiva Shankar Reddy in Devagudi village. He stated that he used to work in the house of Shiva Shankar Reddy. On that day, Mahanandi ramulu and Gayub Sab came to the house of Shiva Shankar Reddy. While Shiva Shankar Reddy was going to Hyderabad, asked him to get. samans to Hyderabad along wilh PW-2, PW-3 and Mahanandi ramulu since they were also going to Hyderabad. On the next day, he went to Devagudi to the house of Shiva Shankar Reddy. The wife of shiva Shankar Reddy handed over a. letter and an amount of Rs. 100/-and she gave two urea bags; one bag containing Jawar and another bag containing boiled rice. He took the said articles and wen; to jammalamadugu bus stand at about 4 p. m. As he was waiting in the bus stand with the said bags, Gayub Sab came to the bus stand. 100/-and she gave two urea bags; one bag containing Jawar and another bag containing boiled rice. He took the said articles and wen; to jammalamadugu bus stand at about 4 p. m. As he was waiting in the bus stand with the said bags, Gayub Sab came to the bus stand. After some time, Mahanandi Ramulu also came to the bus stand. After some time, PW-2 M. Venkata Ramana came to the bus stand. Then they all boarded the bus at 9 p. m. After getting down from the bus, along with the luggage, he went to the house of Shiva Shankar Reddy, which was in Malakpet. There he had breakfast and came to the quarters of Varadarajula Reddy, MLA at 9 a. m. There he found pw-2, Mahanandi Ramulu amd one Subba Rao belonging to sunnapuralapally village present there. They sat in the compound and were chit-chatting. After some time, Varadarajula Reddy came to his quarters. At that time, he saw A-1 and some other persons wandering in the said compound. After some time, Shiva Shankar Reddy, Gopal reddy, Pulla Reddy and Laxmaiah came to that place in two autos. Then Shiva Shankar Reddy asked him whether he handed over the samans to his daughter, for which he replied that he handed over the said samans to his daughter. Then Shankar Reddy and Gopal Reddy asked PW-2 whether Varadarajula Reddy had come or not. PW-2 told that Varadarajula Reddy had come. Then Shankar Reddy and Gopal reddy took Mahanandi Ramulu and PW-2 to the quarters of varadarajula Reddy. He did not know what conspired between them inside. After half-an-hour, PW-2 and Mahanandi Ramulu came down from the quarters of Varadarajula Reddy and after half-an-hour of it, shiva Shankar Reddy and Gopal Reddy also got down from the quarters of Varadarajula Reddy. Shankar Reddy asked PW-2 and mahanandi Ramulu whether they v/ant to go to the village and if so, they could go. Shankar Reddy gave Rs. 200/- to the witness for purchase of tickets for the witness and Gayub Sab whereas venkatramana gave money to Subba Rao to purchase ticket for him. After giving tickets, Subba Rao went: away. Then he, Mahanandi ramulu and PW-2 went to city. They went around the city and at about 8 p. m. , they came to the RTC bus stand. After giving tickets, Subba Rao went: away. Then he, Mahanandi ramulu and PW-2 went to city. They went around the city and at about 8 p. m. , they came to the RTC bus stand. They had food outside the bus stand and went towards the gate of the bus stand. At that place, they found Gayub Sab (PW-3) and after seeing PW-3, he told him that he purchased a ticket for him also. Then they boarded the bus and sat. When the bus was about to move at 8. 30 p. m. , Shiva shankar Reddy and Gopal Reddy came and boarded the same bus. ( 22 ) THEN Shiva Shankar Reddy and Gopal Reddy enquired from them whether they were travelling in the same bus. After crossing the outskirts of Hyderabad city, the lights of the bus were put off. Then he slept. At 10 p. m. , the said bus reached Shadnagar bus stand. The driver put on the lights in the bus and Conductor asked the passengers to go and have the dinner. When all the passengers got down from the bus, they also got down from the bus and waiting. Then Pulla Reddy and Laxmaiah came to them and made some enquiries from them. He went to the fruit shop. At that time PW-2 had gone to answer calls of nature. Then he heard cries "champandi, Kottandi". Then he ran towards a pillar and waiting at the said pillar. He saw A-l, A-2, A-3 and A-4 hacking Shiva Shankar Reddy with hunting sickles and A-5 stabbing Shiva Shankar Reddy below the chest with a knife. Due to fear he went beside the water tank. Then, Gopal Reddy was chased by A-6, A-8, A-9 and A-10 and hacked with hunting sickles. Ram subba Reddy (A-7) brothers son of MLA Siva Reddy stabbed on the back of the said Gopal Reddy. The said Ram Subba Reddy was present in the Court as A-7. Due: to fear he boarded the bus. At that time, PW-2 was in the bus. Then he informed PW-2 about the killing of Shiva Shankar Reddy and Gopal Reddy. PW-2 told him that he had also witnessed the occurrence. After some time, the Police came to the place. Then they got down from the bus. The Police went to see the dead bodies. He found two hunting sickles M. Os. Then he informed PW-2 about the killing of Shiva Shankar Reddy and Gopal Reddy. PW-2 told him that he had also witnessed the occurrence. After some time, the Police came to the place. Then they got down from the bus. The Police went to see the dead bodies. He found two hunting sickles M. Os. l and 2 by the side of the dead body of Gopal Reddy. Police and Conductor asked them to board the bus. Then they all sat in their seats in the bus. In the bus, their names and addresses were noted down by the officers. The Police made enquiries one by one and he stated to them what he had witnessed. Then they were asked to go back to their seats. Next day morning at 3 a. m. , the bus started from Shadnagar bus stand. Four days thereafter, the Police came to Jammalamadugu Police station and enquired from him. ( 23 ) THIS witness also narrated the same story and also gave an explanation as to how he was present at the place of occurrence. Before going to the other evidence, it is necessary to analyze the statements of these eyewitnesses because the whole story rests on their testimony. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for appellants with regard to the evidence of PW-2 has already been recorded by me. It may also be pointed out that all of these witnesses were close to the deceased persons. PW-3 is a life convict, who tried to show his presence at the place of occurrence by mentioning that he had gone to one of the deceased, a day before, seeking his help in getting extension of the parole. PW--2 went to deceased No. l for securing a job for his brother, and deceased No. l told him to come to hyderabad so that he could talk to an MLA. There is some amount of doubt in this also, whether the deceased No. l would have asked PW-2 to come to Hyderabad just for recommending his brothers case for appointment, to an MLA. Similarly, PW-2 wanted the help of deceased No. l to get extension in Ms parole. Again, the presence of this witness at Hyderabad was not necessary if deceased No. l had to recommend his case through some MLA. PW-4s explanation to come to Hyderabad is most unexplainable. Similarly, PW-2 wanted the help of deceased No. l to get extension in Ms parole. Again, the presence of this witness at Hyderabad was not necessary if deceased No. l had to recommend his case through some MLA. PW-4s explanation to come to Hyderabad is most unexplainable. He stated that he was working in the house of deceased No. l. Deceased No. ls daughter was living in Hyderabad. Her mother wanted to send two bags, one containing Jawar, another containing boiled rice, and a letter and rs. 100/ -. This she could have sent through her husband or through pws. 2 and 3, who were otherwise going with deceased to Hyderabad. Three persons were coming to Hyderabad, including the deceased, who was the father of the lady to whom two bags and a letter and rs. 100/- had to be sent. Obviously this witness appeared to have been planted, which will become further clear when I discuss the other evidence, which has a bearing on the fact whether these witnesses pws. 2 to 4 were actually present, at the place of occurrence or not at the time of occurrence. ( 24 ) PW-5 turned hostile. PW--6 stated that he knew the deceased and deceased had come to him an 04. 12. 1990 and asked him to give letter for bus reservation since he was an MLA. At that time, he issued a letter on his letterhead for providing two seats in an RTC bus. On 05. 12. 1990, as usual, he left Hyderabad in a night bus at 10 o clock and reached Kadapa on the next day morning i. e. on 06. 12. 1990. After he went to the guest house in Kadapa, he came to know about killing of Shiva Shankar Reddy and Gopal Reddy in Shadnagar bus stand on the previous night. He was examined by CBCID Police with regard to the same. No such fetter was, however, recovered either from the Conductor of the bus or from the person of the deceased. PW-7 is another person, who was MLA of Kadapa constituency. He also knew both the deceased persons. He stated that when he was in Hyderabad, on 05. 12. 1990 around 2. No such fetter was, however, recovered either from the Conductor of the bus or from the person of the deceased. PW-7 is another person, who was MLA of Kadapa constituency. He also knew both the deceased persons. He stated that when he was in Hyderabad, on 05. 12. 1990 around 2. 30 p. m. , shiva Shankar Reddy and Gopal Reddy came to him and asked him to give a letter for reservation of two seats in RTC bus to go to jammalamadugu from Hyderabad. Accordingly, he gave a letter to them to accommodate two seats; in RTC bus to go to Jammalamadugu. On the next day morning he saw from newspapers that Shiva Shankar reddy and Gopal Reddy had been kilted. He also received a phone callabout their death. He was also examined by the Police. This letter also has not seen the light of the day. PW-8 was Controller in Shadnagar bus stand on 05. 12. 1990. ( 25 ) HIS duty hours were from 6 p. m. on 05. 12. 1990 to 2 a. m. on 06. 12. 1990, and again from 5 a. m. to 1 p. m. on 06. 12. 1990. At about 10 p. m. on that night, three or four buses came into the bus stand and stopped and it was the time to have food by the passengers in the said buses. After the buses were stopped in the bus stand, the Conductors of the said buses came to the Controller room and put their signatures against the said bus numbers in the chart maintained by the Controller. On that day, the Conductors of the said four buses came to his room and put their signatures in the said charts with regard to their respective bus numbers. After five minutes of the Conductors having left his room, he heard a galata of fighting. He came out of his room and saw some people beating some persons at that place with sickles. Then he telephoned to the Police Station, Shadnagar. Depot Manager was in the guest house at that time, which was situated in the first floor of the same building. He wertt to that place to inform the same to him. But the Depot Manager was not available in the said guest house at that time. Then he telephoned to the Police Station, Shadnagar. Depot Manager was in the guest house at that time, which was situated in the first floor of the same building. He wertt to that place to inform the same to him. But the Depot Manager was not available in the said guest house at that time. Then he went to the residence of the Depot manager and informed about what: he had witnessed. Then both of them went to the Police Station, Shadnagar. They were informed at the Police Station that already a Police party had left to the bus stand. Then, he and the Manager came to the bus stand. They saw the Police standing near the dead bodies in the bus stand. One dead body was found at platform near a fruit stall and another one was lying on the ground on the right side of the bus. Then they verified the tickets of the passengers who were in the bus. Said verification was done by him, Controller and Inspector of Police. On verification of tickets with the passengers present in the: bus, they found three persons were less in the bus. They verified the names of passengers who were present in the bus with S. R. of the Conductor. After verification of s. R. maintained by the Conductor, his Depot Manager put his signature on the said S. R. He could identify the signature of his depot Manager. Ex. P-3 was the S. R. maintained by the Conductor, which was verified by them on thai night and also on which his Depot manager put his signature. When they were checking the tickets of the passengers who were present in the bus, the Inspector of Police noted down the names and addresses of all the passengers in the bus, in the diary. He, Depot Manager and Inspector of Police went to his room. After sitting in the room, the Inspector of Police called the passengers of the said bus one by one and enquired from them as to how the incident had occurred. He wrote down their statements on a paper. The addresses of the passengers were got typed on a paper and after verifying the contents of the same, the Depot Manager and inspector of Police signed on the list. It was exhibited as Ex. P-4. He could identify the signature of his Depot manager. He wrote down their statements on a paper. The addresses of the passengers were got typed on a paper and after verifying the contents of the same, the Depot Manager and inspector of Police signed on the list. It was exhibited as Ex. P-4. He could identify the signature of his Depot manager. Then the Inspector of Police allowed the bus to go from Shadnagar bus stand at about 3 a. m. on 06. 12. 1990. In Shadnagatr on the same night, he was examined by the Police. Afterwards, he was also examined by the cbcid Police. ( 26 ) IN the cross-examination by the counsel for A-l to A-6 and a-10, he stated that he did not observe how many persons were hacked. His room was situated opposite to the canteen in the bus stand. The dead body which was found on the platform was at a distance of 30 feet from his room. The house of Depot Manager was opposite to the bus stand. By the time he went to the house of the depot Manager, he did not see the (Head bodies. For the first time he saw the dead bodies when he came back along with the Depot manager to the bus stand. Before he went to the house of Depot manager, neither the driver nor the Conductor of the bus came to him. By the time he came to the bus stand along with the Depot Manager, the Sub-Inspector and Circle Inspector of Police had reached the spot. He did not remember as to when he went to the bus stand along with the Manager and whether anybody had given any complaint to the police. He remained with the Police along with the Depot Manager till the bus left the bus stand with passengers. No passenger informed him as to how the occurrence had taken place. he did not remember whether the Police seized any material from the person of the dead bodies or near the dead bodies. He did not remember whether he had stated before the Inspector of Police, Shadnagar about his checking the tickets of the passengers in that bus. He did not put his signatures on S. R. Ex. P-3. He did not write anything on Ex. P-3, but is Manager had written that he had verified the tickets. In Ex. He did not remember whether he had stated before the Inspector of Police, Shadnagar about his checking the tickets of the passengers in that bus. He did not put his signatures on S. R. Ex. P-3. He did not write anything on Ex. P-3, but is Manager had written that he had verified the tickets. In Ex. P-3, the ticket numbers of the passengers who were missing, were not mentioned. He accepted that one Kalutla Ram Subba Reddy and G. Venkat narayana Reddy were detained by the Police for examination and the amounts of Rs. 55/- and Rs. 30/- respectively were refunded to them at shadnagar bus station and Depot Manager put his signature underneath of the above endorsement. In the S. R. , there was a signature of K. Ram Subba Reddy for the receipt of amount and the signature of Venkat Narayana Reddy does not find place for the receipt of the amount by him. He: did not hand over Ex. P-4 to the inspector of Police. Ex. P-4 does not: contain his signature. He did not remember whether he had stated before the local Police that a list in ex. P-4 was prepared at that time. The signature shown to him on the letter addressed to the Regional Manager, Shadnagar Region, apsrtc by their Depot Manager was shown to him and the same was written by the then Depot Manager Kashyap Kumar. Ex. D-15 was the letter addressed to the Regional Manager, Shadnagar Region of APSRTC, dated 06. 12. 1990. He has admitted that Ex. D-15 contains the recitals that one Shiva Shankar Reddy and Gopal Reddy were brutally murdered by unidentified persons. Ex. P-4 does not contain the ticket numbers against the names of the passengers. The sub-Inspector of Police got scribed the names and addresses of the passengers on a paper. APSRTC employee got typed the list at the instance of the Inspector of Police. The typewriter of their office was used for getting typed the list Ex. P-4. He did not state either before the local Police or before CBCID Police that the names and addresses of the passengers were written and. subsequently the same was got typed on a paper. On that night at 1. 15 or so, the Inspector of Police got recorded his statement. P-4. He did not state either before the local Police or before CBCID Police that the names and addresses of the passengers were written and. subsequently the same was got typed on a paper. On that night at 1. 15 or so, the Inspector of Police got recorded his statement. He did not remember after how many days of the incident he was examined by the CBCID Police. He retired from service on 30. 06. 2004. Till today, he did not know how the incident had occurred. ( 27 ) PW-9 is the Conductor of the bus. He stated that on 04. 12. 1990 he was asked to do the job of the Conductor with the bus that was to go to Hyderabad from Proddutur. On 05. 12. 1990, the same bus had to return and come to Proddutur. The bus was numbered AEZ 4423. He knew Devagudi Shiva Shankar Reddy and Jammalamadugu Gopal reddy. On 05. 12. 1990, they started in the said bus at 8. 30 p. m. from hyderabad. One Kalesha was the driver of the said bus on that day. On 05. 12. 1990, in that bus, Devagudi Shiva Shankar Reddy and jammalamadugu Gopal Reddy travelled on a letter of MLA. Accordingly he provided two seats on payment of regular fair. As per ex. P-3, 42 passengers had travelled in the said bus from Hyderabad. Apart from them, one person by name Nagaraja Rao of the department travelled on medical pass. Ex. P-5 was the reservation chart in two pages for the reservation of the tickets of the bus from hyderabad to Proddutur. Ex. P-6 was the reservation chart in two pages for the bus to go to Hyderabad from Proddutur on 04. 12. 1990. The said bus started from Hyderabad at 8. 30 p. m. on 05. 12. 1990 and reached Shadnagar bus stand at 9. 50 or 10 p. m. After the said bus reached Shadnagar bus stand, the driver put on the lights. Then he asked the passengers to go and have food if they want, in the said bus stand. Then he went to Controller room and signed on the controller chart about the arrival of the bus. 50 or 10 p. m. After the said bus reached Shadnagar bus stand, the driver put on the lights. Then he asked the passengers to go and have food if they want, in the said bus stand. Then he went to Controller room and signed on the controller chart about the arrival of the bus. Then he went into the canteen of the said bus stand and while he was taking food, the hotel people closed the doors of the canteen stating that there was a galata outside the canteen in the bus stand premises. After the said galata subsided, the doors of the canteen were opened. Then he ran towards his bus and he and the driver boarded the bus. Then the driver started the bus. In the meanwhile the passengers in the bus told that some of the passengers did not come, on which, the bus was stopped. Then he got out from the bus and went near a dead body along with Ram Subba reddy. Then Ram Subba Reddy told him that the said dead body was that of one Devagudi Shiva Shankar Reddy who was one of the passengers in the said bus. They found another dead body on the right side of the bus, by the side of the drivers door on the ground. Then he and Ram Subba Reddy went to the Controllers room. By that time, the Controller went to the Depot Manager. Then Police came to the place, saw the dead bodies and asked the passengers to sit in their respective seats in the bus. Enquiries; were made from him by the police. He narrated to the Police what he had witnessed. He did not observe whether the Police enquired from passengers as to how the incident occurred. The Police detained two passengers and refunded the necessary amount. Depot Manager had written on Ex. P-3 with regard to refund of the said amount to the said passengers. The dead body of Shiva Shankar Reddy was lying on a platform infront of a fruit shop. The dead body of Gopal Reddy was lying on the ground on the right side of the bus near the drivers seat. He had seen two hunting sickles by the side of the dead body of Gopal Reddy. M. Os. The dead body of Shiva Shankar Reddy was lying on a platform infront of a fruit shop. The dead body of Gopal Reddy was lying on the ground on the right side of the bus near the drivers seat. He had seen two hunting sickles by the side of the dead body of Gopal Reddy. M. Os. 1 and 2 were the said sickles, which were found by the side of the dead body of Gopal Reddy on that night. At about 3 a. m. on 06. 12. 1990, the bus started from Shadnagar bus stand. When their bus reached nossam, they came to know that there was a galata going on in jammalamadugu and hence they turned the bus and went to Proddutur via Allagadda bus Depot and reached Proddutur. He had written about the deviation of route in Proddutur in the S. R. Ex. P-3. Ex. P-7 was his endorsement on Ex. P-3 and it contained his signature. As per the entries, their bus reached Proddutur at 1. 45 p. m. on 06. 12. 1990. There was a light illumination in the Shadnagar bus stand when they stopped the bus and got down from the bus. He had narrated about the above facts to the regular Police at Shadnagar when he was examined on that night. Subsequently, after one week, the CBCID police came to Jammalamadugu and recorded his statement. ( 28 ) IN his cross-examination by counsel for A-l to A-6 and A-10,. he stated that there was a quota oil seats reserved for MPs and MLAs in RTC buses. Two seats are reserved for MLA and two seats are reserved for MP in RTC buses and they are bound to provide the said seats to the persons recommended by the MLAs. They have to give preference to the MLA of Proddutur in providing seats in the quota of mla, as the bus belong to the Proddutur Depot. Shiva Shankar reddy and Gopal Reddy gave the: MLA letter to them and thereupon he allotted seats to them in the bus. When the Police enquired from him, he handed over the said letter to Police. After boarding of the said two persons, the bus was full and there were no vacant seats in the bus. If all seats are occupied, then some passengers are allowed to remain standing in the bus. When the Police enquired from him, he handed over the said letter to Police. After boarding of the said two persons, the bus was full and there were no vacant seats in the bus. If all seats are occupied, then some passengers are allowed to remain standing in the bus. Shadnagar bus stand had two entrances, one is for entry and the other is for exit. ( 29 ) IN the cross-examination by the counsel for A-7, he stated that the bus reached Jammalamadugu on 04. 12. 1990 at 9. 30 p. m. , having started from Proddutur at 9 p. m. Ex. P-5 and P-6 does not contain his signatures. There were no entries in Ex. P-5 and P-6, pertaining to him. Ex. P-5 and P-6 do not contain any signature of any person except at one page. Ex. P-7 endorsement was made by him at proddutur before submitting the same to the Depot Manager. During the year 1990, the fare from Hyderabad to Proddutur was Rs. 71/- and from Hyderabad to Jammalamadugu was Rs. 67/ -. Police did not seize ex. P-3, P-5 and P-6 from him. PW-10 was a Police Constable, who was on duty in Shadnagar bus stand from 9 p. m. to 12 mid night on 05. 12. 1990. On that night, he received a message through VHF set from Shadnagar Police station about coming of jeeps and asked him to stop the said jeeps. He came infront of the Police Station outside to the road. Within 5 or 10 minutes, jeeps came. He raised his hands and asked the drivers to stop the jeeps, but they did not stop. ( 30 ) PW-11 stated that he knew the deceased and accused. On 01. 12. 1990, he came to Hyderabad from his native place sunnapuralapally. On 02. 12. 1990, he went to Jeedimetla where his friend Sudhakar Reddy was staying. On 03. 12. 1990, he and his friend sudhakar Reddy came to MLA quarters to the quarters 01 varadarajula Reddy, MLA, Proddutur. They enquired for him, but they were told that Varadarajula Reddy was not available and he had gone out. Then he and his friend Sudhakar Reddy went to Jeedimetla. On the night of 03. 12. 1990, he stayed in his friends room in chandrasekhar and some others going out from the said quarters. They enquired for him, but they were told that Varadarajula Reddy was not available and he had gone out. Then he and his friend Sudhakar Reddy went to Jeedimetla. On the night of 03. 12. 1990, he stayed in his friends room in chandrasekhar and some others going out from the said quarters. On the same day at 7 p. m. , he asked Miryala Venkata Ramana and mahanandi Ramulu and Doodekula Kullayappa to come to Gowliguda bus stand. He also told them that he would come to Gowliguda bus stand at 7 p. m. on that day. He waited till 7. 30 p. m. in the Gowliguda bus stand, but they did not turn up. While he was returning from gowliguda bus stand, he saw Sugurnanchipally Venkat Ram Reddy and his brothers and some others standing near a jeep in Gowliguda bus stand. Then he returned to New MLA quarters of Varadarajula reddy and slept in the said quarters on that night. On 06. 12. 1990, at about 2 p. m. , he came to know about the incident in which Shiva shankar Reddy and Gopal Reddy were killed. ( 31 ) I have already discussed the evidence of PWs. 2 to 4, who were projected as eyewitnesses. Now, to establish that these witnesses were present on the spot, the most important document was Ex. P-4, to which a reference has been made bj PW-8; But it is interesting to know that Ex. P-4 was, according to PW-8, prepared immediately after the occurrence at the bus stand itself, but this Ex. P-4 did not see the light of the day till six months after the charge sheet was filed. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that on several occasions the charge sheet had been returned for removing the deficiencies and thereafter, this Ex. P-4 was presented in the Court. But I have found from the record that this document was filed after six months, and there is not jeedimetla. On the next day i. e. on 04. 12. 1990, he alone came to the quarters of Varadarajula Reddy and asked for him in the quarters. He was told that Varadarajula Reddy went outside and would return after some time. Then he came down from the upstairs of the MLA quarters and was waiting outside. On the next day i. e. on 04. 12. 1990, he alone came to the quarters of Varadarajula Reddy and asked for him in the quarters. He was told that Varadarajula Reddy went outside and would return after some time. Then he came down from the upstairs of the MLA quarters and was waiting outside. After some time, Jammalamadugu shiva Reddy, Venkat Rant Reddy, Vemanarayana Reddy, shivnarayan Reddy, Venkatnarayana Reddy, Boditippalapadu vishveshwar Reddy, Ladclu Venkat Ramana, Chandra Sekhar and some others went in two jeeps from the quarters of Shiva Reddy. After some time, Varadarajula Reddy, Proddutur MLA came to his quarters. After some time, deceased No. l and 2 also came to the said quarters. They then went into the quarters of Varadarajula Reddy, talked to them and came down from the upstairs. On the sameday evening, when he was going towards Charminar through Gowliguda at 7 p. m. , he saw MLA Shiva Reddy, Venkat Ram Reddy and some others standing at a jeep in Gowliguda bus stand. From there, he went towards Charminar. On that night, he returned to the quarters of varadarajula Reddy and after taking food, he slept in the said quarters. On the next day in the early hours, Mahanandi Ramulu and miryala Venkata Ramana came to the quarters of Varadarajula Reddy and half-an-hour thereafter, Kullayappa also came there. He was standing at that place along wirth the above three persons. After some time, he saw Sugumanchipally Venkat Ram Reddy and his brothers even a reference to Ex. P-4 in the charge sheet itself. Therefore, it becomes highly doubtful whether this document was prepared at the time of occurrence or later. According to the witness i. e. PW-8, there were 42 passenger traveling in the bus. He was emphatic in his statement that the addresses and the names of all the 42 passengers were recorded by the Police, but only those three witnesses were brought as eyewitnesses out of the 42 passengers because they had got some connection with the deceajsed persons. The bus stand is a busy place always and according to the Controller, four buses had reached the bus stand almost the same time. There might have been other buses also, which had to start from Shadnagar. The bus stand is a busy place always and according to the Controller, four buses had reached the bus stand almost the same time. There might have been other buses also, which had to start from Shadnagar. There were shops, hotels and fruit stalls in the bus stand, and hundreds of people would have been present in the bus stand, 42 passengers were travelling in the bus itself, but the Police picked up only three witnesses out of these persons and projected them as eyewitnesses. The testimony of all these three witnesses appears to be artificial. Even in the charge sheet, there was no mention about Ex. P-4, which would perhaps have clinched the issue, had this document been proved to be genuine. Therefore, it is highly doubtful whether PWs. 2 to 4 were travelling in the same bus in which the deceased were travelling. There is even an amount of doubt with respect to the travelling of the deceased persons in the bus because, according to the prosecution, these persons did not purchase any tickets. They travelled on letters given by MLAs. Those letters, according to the Conductor, were handed over by him to the Police. Those letters are also not on record. Therefore, even it is not" possible to hold with certainty that deceased persons were travelling in that bus. Every MLA, according to PW-9, had reservation of two seats therefore, there was no necessity for the deceased persons to get two letters from two MLAs. , as they needed only two seats and they did not need four seats. Now, in the light of the fact that the presence of PWs. 2 to 4 at the place of occurrence was doubtful, this Court does not feel it necessary to go through the evidence of other witnesses, except the evidence of investigating officers. ( 32 ) PW-19 was the Sub-Inspector of Police, Shadnagar. He stated that he had received a telephonic message from Shadnagar bus stand that there was some galata in the bus stand. Immediately, he, Circle inspector of Police, Shadnagar took the available force and rushed to the bus stand. They found two dead bodies in the bus stand. One k. Ram Subba Reddy of Kalmatla village, Kadapa District wanted to report the matter. Immediately, he, Circle inspector of Police, Shadnagar took the available force and rushed to the bus stand. They found two dead bodies in the bus stand. One k. Ram Subba Reddy of Kalmatla village, Kadapa District wanted to report the matter. Then the C. I. directed him to take the said K. R. am subba Reddy to the Police Station for obtaining the complaint and to register the case. K. Ram Subba Reddy drafted a complaint in Telugu and presented to him in the Police Station at 22. 45 hours. Basing on the above complaint, he registered a. case in Crime No. 183 of 1990 under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149 of l. P. C. and sent express F. I. Rs. to all the concerned. Ex. P-21 was the complaint given by K. Ram Subba Reddy and Ex. P-22 was the express F. I. R. Thereafter, he visited the spot and assisted the Circle Inspector of police in the investigation. ( 33 ) PW-20 was Circle Inspector of Police, Shadnagar at the relevant point of time. He stated that on 05. 12. 1990 at 10 p. m. , he was sitting in the Police Station, Shadnagar. The Sub-Inspector of police received a telephone call from the bus stand of Shadnagar stating that there was some galata in the bus stand. Then he and the sub-Inspector of Police went to the Shadnagar bus stand and saw two dead bodies were lying in the premises of Shadnagar bus stand. At that time, no persons were gathered around the dead bodies. They searched for the accused at the place, but could not trace them. In the bus stand, he found one Ram Subha Reddy (LW-1) and asked PW-19 to take said Ram Subba Reddy to the Station for the purpose of taking the complaint from him. He asked the Sub-Inspector to go to the police Station for the purpose and asked the S. I. to register the case. At about 11 p. m. , PW-19 came from the Police Station after registering the case and assisted him in investigation. Before PW-19 returned, he verified the passengers of the said bus and the list of their names. The Depot Manager, Controller, Conductor and he got verified the tickets and names and addresses of the passengers. At about 11 p. m. , PW-19 came from the Police Station after registering the case and assisted him in investigation. Before PW-19 returned, he verified the passengers of the said bus and the list of their names. The Depot Manager, Controller, Conductor and he got verified the tickets and names and addresses of the passengers. Thereafter, he examined and recorded the statements of K. Ram Subba reddy, D. Venkata Narayana Reddy, Miryak Venkats Ramana, gopireddy Venkat subba Reddy, Gona Veeramma, Gayub Sab, doodekula Kullayappa,mahanandi Ramulu, Singireddy Pulla Reddy, bolla Pedda Laxmaiah, Ganta Chandrasekhar and Shaik Kailash in the shadnagar bus stand. He secured the presence of mediators and conducted scene of offence panchan; ma. He also took bloodstained earth and controlled earth and he also seized two sickles, which were found near the body of Gopal Reddy He obtained signatures of panch witnesses. Ex. P-10 was the scene of offence panchanama. M. Os. 1 and 2 were the sickles, which were seized during the course of panchanama. He called the photographer and took photographs of dead bodies. Ex. P-11 to P-17 were the photographs. All the passengers of the bus were asked to board and sit in their respective seats. At about 3 a. m. on 06. 12. 1990, the bus was allowed to move out of Shadnagar bus stand. He shifted the said two bodies to the mortuary of Shadnagar Government; hospital and posted a guard at the mortuary room. On 06. 12. 1990, he got conducted inquest over the dead body of Shiva Shankar Reddy in the presence of mediators. He also found some receipts and papers in the pockets of the shirt of the deceased Shiva Shankar Reddy. They were drenched with blood. He seized the same during the course of inquest panchanama. Ex. P-23 was the bunch of the said papers seized by him, which includes parole application of Gayub Sab, dated 04. 11. 1990 and the bills of siddhartha hotel, Hyderabad containing dates 04. 12. 1990 and 05. 12. 1990 and ten Rs. 100/- notes and one Rs. 50/- note and four rs. 10/- notes and six Rs. 5/- notes totalling to Rs. 1090/ -. M. O. 7 were the said notes. He also seized M. 0. 8 a pair of spectacles. 11. 1990 and the bills of siddhartha hotel, Hyderabad containing dates 04. 12. 1990 and 05. 12. 1990 and ten Rs. 100/- notes and one Rs. 50/- note and four rs. 10/- notes and six Rs. 5/- notes totalling to Rs. 1090/ -. M. O. 7 were the said notes. He also seized M. 0. 8 a pair of spectacles. Inquest was concluded by 10 a. n. Inquest was held on the body of Gopal Reddy at 10 a. m. in the presence of the above mediators and during the course of said inquest, the witnesses were also enquired. During the course of inquest, he seized M. 0. 9 white shirt, M. O. 10 blue colour sweater, M. O. 11 polyester full banian, M. O. 12 one dhoti and M. O. 13 cut drawer from the body of Gopaj Reddy and all the items were stained with blood. Inquest was completed at 11. 30 a. m. Ex. P-9 was the inquest panchanama over the dead body of Gopal Reddy. He detained Ram Subba Reddy and Venkata Narayana Reddy (PW-1) for some time and the amount they had paid for tickets was got refunded to them and the tickets were seized from them. Ex. P-24 was the bunch of tickets issued by the RTC, pasted on a paper. After concluding the inquest over the dead bodies of Shiva Shankar Reddy and Gopal Reddy, he sent the two dead bodies for the postmortem, by giving requisition to the concerned doctor. On 07. 12. 1990, he received message from the Superintendent of Police, Mahabubnagar, asking him to hand over the C. D. file for further investigation to cbcid Police. Accordingly, he handed over the C. D. file to the inspector of Police, Laxmaiah, CBCID, Hyderabad. ( 34 ) THERE are so many discrepancies pointed oil during the cross-examination of this witness. On 07. 12. 1990 at 8 or 9 a. m. , he handed over the case to CBCID. He did not enquire from, the persons who were in the bus stand with regard to the facts as tc how the incident had occurred, before he asked the Sub-Inspector to go along with Ram subba Reddy to the Station for the purpose of taking the complaint and register a case. Till that time, nobody came to him and nobody informed him about how the inciident had occurred. Till that time, nobody came to him and nobody informed him about how the inciident had occurred. He had not written ticket numbers of the passengers and their destinations in ex. P-4. He had not tried to send the said list Ex. P-4 on that day. He asked the passengers to get down and come to the Controllers room and in the Controllers room, he made enquiries from said passengers. It took two hours for him to examine 12 witnesses at that time in the controllers room. In the Controllers room, the Depot Manager and conductor were present. Out of the 12 persons, two were Conductor and Depot Manager. Out of the remaining 10 persons, there were two outsiders who were not travelling in the said bus. They were Pulla reddy (LW-9) and Bella Pedda Laxmaiah (PW-5 ). As per the Police standing Orders, they had to give tine serial numbers to the witnesses whom they had examined, one after another. On that night, he examined Ram Subba Reddy as a first witness. He had examined pw-1, PW-2, Venkat Subba Reddy (LW-4), Vccramma (LW-5), gayub Sab (PW-3), Doodekula Kullayappa (PW-4), Mahanandi ramulu (LW-8), Singamreddy Pulla Rccldy (LW-9), Bellala laxmaiah (PW-5), Chandrasekhar i (PW-9) and Kalesha (LW-17 ). At the time of examining the witnesses, the statements were reduced to writing. Copies of the statements were made later on. He was haying xerox copies of the statements of the said witnesses. Originals were filed into the Court and compared with the xerox copies in his file and the statements filed in the Court were recorded by him. They tally with each other. He had written Section 161 Cr. P. C. statements of the said witnesses only once. According to the said statements, LW-1 ram Subba Reddy was examined on 07. 12. 1990. It was running in to 7 pages. In 161 Cr. P. C. statement of PW-1, it was continuously written along with 161 Cr. P. C. statement of LW-1 Ram Subba Reddy. PW-2 had stated before him as iis contained in Ex. D-5. PW-4 had stated before him as is contained in Ex. D-11. As per the statement given by Veeramma before him, she was examined one week after 03. 12. 1990. P. C. statement of LW-1 Ram Subba Reddy. PW-2 had stated before him as iis contained in Ex. D-5. PW-4 had stated before him as is contained in Ex. D-11. As per the statement given by Veeramma before him, she was examined one week after 03. 12. 1990. LW-9 Pulla Reddy and PW-5 Laxmaiah did not produce their bus tickets before him and he did not also enquire them about their bus tickets and they did not make enquiries from him about their tickets. LW-1 Ram Subba Reddy and PW-1, whose statements he had recorded, did not know the names of the assailants. The other persons examined by him also did not disclose the names of the assailants. He detained two persons LW-1 Ram Subba Reddy and PW-1 for the purpose of enquiry. He stated, "it is true that in the column No. 9 in ex. P-8 it was written that Vema Narayan Reddy and Visweswer reddy stabbed Shiva Shankar Reddy with knives. It is true that there are corrections at the names of Rama Subba Reddy and Venkat Ram reddy at page 4 in column No. 4 of Ex. P-8 and Ex. P-9. I conducted inquest and scribed the inquest one after the other. I do not know who made the said corrections as spoken by me above. The inquest reports have to be sent to the Court without any delay. I do not remember whether I sent the inquests to the Magistrate on 06. 12. 1990 after Court hours or before Court hours or before closure of the court. In Column No. 15 of Ex. P-8 and P-9, the name of Ram Subba reddy is noted as Annapu Ram Siubba Reddy. " He also stated ttat before getting typed the names and addresses on Ex. P-4, he got prepared rough for it and the same was got typed in the bus depot after taking the permission of the Depot Manager. He did not keep the said rough prepared by him at that time,, pw-21 was another Inspector of Police, who was working with cbcid, Hyderabad. He stated that on 07. 12. 1990, he visited shadnagar Police Station after the case was transferred to CBCID. He collected C. D. files of the case from C. I. , Shadnagar. He perused the entire investigation of the case and took up investigation. On 07. 12. He stated that on 07. 12. 1990, he visited shadnagar Police Station after the case was transferred to CBCID. He collected C. D. files of the case from C. I. , Shadnagar. He perused the entire investigation of the case and took up investigation. On 07. 12. 1990, he examined the complainant LW-1 Kalutla Ram Subba reddy, PW-1 G. Venkat Narayan Reddy, Mohd. Shareef, RTC bus stand Controller and Kashyap Kumar, Depot Manager, Shadnagar and recorded their statements. He found the list of passengers travelled in the RTC bus bearing No. AEZ 44:23 from Hyderabad to Proddutur on the night of 05. 12. 1990. The said register was signed by C. I. , shadnagar and M. Kashyap Kumar, RTC Depot Manager, Shadnagar. Thereafter, during investigation, he arrested the accused persons. On 10. 12. 1990, he visited Kadapa and examined some witnesses. On 11. 12. 1990, he also examined some witnesses. PWs. 2 to 4 and one mahanandi Ramulu gave their tickets as they travelled in reservation seat Nos. 13, 14, 15 and 16 on 05. 12. 1990 along with the two deceased. He collected those tickets from them. He found their numbers as 003/508858 to 61 of denomination of Rs. 60/- each, 006/523803 to 806 of Rs. 2/- denomination each, 133/07874 to 877 of denomination of Rs. 4/- each, 093366089 to 92 four tickets of Rs. 5/-each, 821214 to 216 of Rs. 2/- each. He also stated that he collected the details of the chart of the buses noted at Shadnagar bus stand for the date 05. 12. 1990. On 17. 12. 1990, he examined S. Krishna, p. Narsimha Rao, C. Sugananda Reddy, D. Rajagopal Reddy/ K. Vishnuvardhan Reddy, S. Subrahmanyam, S. Nagamani, smt. Nagamilleshwari Devi, V. Vijaya Kumar who travelled in the same bus on 05. 12. 1990, but tlhey did not disclose anything about the offence. He visited Hyderabad, Shadnagar, Parigi on 19. 12. 1990 and 20. 12. 1990. He examined] G. Narsimha and D. Narsimhulu of kannelooru village and Devagudi Subba Rao of Sugunandham village and recorded their statements. On 23. 12. 1990 and on 24. 12. 1990, he visited Jammalamadugu and mads efforts for the accused at jammalamadugu and Kadapa. On 25. 12. 1990, he examined dr. M. V. Sivaramakrishna Rao, MLA Badvel at Kadapa and recorded his statement. On 23. 12. 1990 and on 24. 12. 1990, he visited Jammalamadugu and mads efforts for the accused at jammalamadugu and Kadapa. On 25. 12. 1990, he examined dr. M. V. Sivaramakrishna Rao, MLA Badvel at Kadapa and recorded his statement. He also examined G. Sujatha, D. Naresh Babu, c. Mohan and K. Ranganatha Rao, G. Laxminarayana who travelled in rtc bus No. AEZ 4423 on the night of 05. 12. 1990, in which Shiva shankar Reddy of Devagudi village and Gopal Reddy of jammalamadugu, Kalutla Ram Subba Reddy of Kalutla village, g. Venkatanarayana Reddy of Hariharan and some other witnesses were travelling. He had not recorded their statements, as they had not given useful information in this case. ( 35 ) IN his cross-examination, he :stated that originally the charge sheet was returned on so many grounds, which include the non-filing of the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C. Subsequently, the said charge sheet was resubmitted along with the statements on complying the said objections, on 25. 06. 1991. He admitted that the statement of LW-1 Ram Subba Reddy recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C. shows that the date of examination was 07. 12. 1990 and that it was recorded by N. Laxmaiah, Inspector of police, CBCID, Mahaboobnagar at Shadnagar but the said statement contains the signature of the Inspector of Police, Shadnagar. Underneath the said statement of Ram Subba Reddy, the signature of inspector of Police, Shadnagar does not find place. In the same page, the statement of G. Venkatanarayana Reddy was continued as per recitals mentioned in page 5, bud the said C. I. signed at page No. 7, after completing the statement: of PW-2. There was no date underneath the signature of the said C. I. at page No. 7. The serial numbers given to the witnesses by the Inspector of Police, Shadnagar were No. l to K. Ram Subba Reddy and No. 2 to G. Venkatanarayana reddy. He examined the said Ram Subba Reddy and g. Venkatanarayana Reddy on 07. 12. 1990. He did not go through the statements of the said witnesses uecorded by the Inspector of Police at the time when he examined and recorded their statements. He had recorded their statements as per their version given to him at that time. He examined the said Ram Subba Reddy and g. Venkatanarayana Reddy on 07. 12. 1990. He did not go through the statements of the said witnesses uecorded by the Inspector of Police at the time when he examined and recorded their statements. He had recorded their statements as per their version given to him at that time. He did not copy down the statements of the said witnesses recorded by the Inspector of Police, Shadnagar. At this stage, it may be pointed out that the Inspector of Police, Shadnagar also stated that he had recorded the statements and the: statements annexed with the charge sheet were the copies of the statements recorded by him. This witness stated that he had also recorded the statements, but he accepted that those statements did not contain the signatures of any officer of cbcid. According to the prosecution, there were two sets of statements recorded under Sectiion 161 Cr. P. C. ; one by the Police of shadnagar and another one by CBCID. One of them was obviously suppressed. He further stated that the statements of LW-1 Ram Subba reddy and PW-1 were recorded by Police of Shadnagar in one handwriting. He had examined PWsi. 2, 3, 4 and Mahanandi Ramulu, venkata Subba Reddy and Veeramma on 11. 12. 1990 at Devagjdi village and recorded their statements. He also clarified, "in the charge sheet nothing was mentioned about Ex. P-4 or about verification of the tickets of the passenger?; and about preparing scene of offence panchanama at the place of dead bodies on 05. 12. 1990. " He also Stated, "i did not ask the Inspector of Police, Shadnagar with regard to the correctness made at the place of names of Ram subba Reddy and Venkata Ramana at page No. 4 in Ex. P-8 and P-9. Whenever a case was entrusted to the CBCID, we have to investigate afresh from the beginning. Ex. P-4 was submitted to the Court on 25. 06. 1991 since the same was appeared on it, but Ex. P-4 signed by shadnagar Inspector of Police and Depot Manager, RTC, Shadnagar dated 05. 12. 1990. On 07. 12. 1990 itself I took the copy of Ex. P-4 from the Circle Inspector of Police, Shadnagar. " He further Stated, "my C. D. dated 07. 12. 06. 1991 since the same was appeared on it, but Ex. P-4 signed by shadnagar Inspector of Police and Depot Manager, RTC, Shadnagar dated 05. 12. 1990. On 07. 12. 1990 itself I took the copy of Ex. P-4 from the Circle Inspector of Police, Shadnagar. " He further Stated, "my C. D. dated 07. 12. 1990 would disclose that I also found the list of passengers travelled in that bus AEZ 4423 from Hyderabad to proddutor. I did not sent the copy of my CD dated 07. 12. 1990 along with my remand report dated 24. 01. 1991. Ex. P-10 was received by the Court on 31. 01. 1992. I recorded the statements of the conductor and driver of AP 9z 393 proceeding from Hyderabad to Nandyal, but i have not filed the statements of the said persons into Court. I did not enquire the conductor of the said bus as how many persons boarded at Hyderabad and how many persons got down at Kurnool. PW-1 has stated before me as in Ex. D-2 and D-4. PW-2 has stated before me as in Ex. D-6 and D-8. PW-3 has stated before me as in Ex. D-10. PW-4 has stated before me as in Ex. D-12 andd-14. PW-9 has stated before me as in Ex. D-17". He further Stated, "the statements of the witnesses were recorded by ms are not in my writing. Witness volunteers that Raghava Reddy S. I. , CBCID has written the said statements to my dictation. The said statements does not contain the endorsement to the effect that the statements are scribed by Raghava reddy to my dictation". He further Stated, "by the date of sending my remand report dated 24. 1. 1991, I could not confirm about the involvement of P. Siva Reddy, MLA in this case. By that time, we came to know that the said Siva Reddy had an elibi and to verify with regard to the said elibi and to find out whether Siva Reddy was involved in the present offence, I could not mention his name as one of the accused in the said remand report. Even by that time, accused no. 7 Ram Subba Reddy put on elibi but his name was shown as one of the accused, since we made enquiry with regard to the said elibi. Even by that time, accused no. 7 Ram Subba Reddy put on elibi but his name was shown as one of the accused, since we made enquiry with regard to the said elibi. I did not mention about the same either in my remand report or earlier my CD. reports ". On cross-examination by the counsel for A-7, he further stated, "/ have not examined any shop keepers at shadnagar bus stand around the dead body even my visit to bus stand". ( 36 ) FOR the reasons mentioned above and on analysis of the evidence, I have come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused beyond the shadow of doubt. Summary of some of the findings is given below (1) There were 42 persons travelling in the bus. Some of them, in addition to PWs. 2 to 4, were examined by PW-21, but he suppressed their statements. He also submitted that [lie did not record the statements of some of the witnesses, as they were not useful to the prosecution and only three witnesses PWs. 2 to 4 were produced, who were close to the deceased and whose testimony appears to be artificial, as has been pointed out hereinabove. They do not belong to Hyderabad, they do not appear to be natural witnesses and their testimony does not inspire the confidence of the Court. Even if it is believed that they were travelling in the bus, it is highly unbelievable that they had seen the occurrence. 42 independent witnesses were available but prosecution selects only three interested witnesses. As such adverse inference can be drawn. Reference can be made to the judgment reported in Bir Singh v. The State of u. P. , air 1978 SC 59 . (2) Out of PWs. 2 to 4 who were close to the deceased, none went to the Police to give a report. (3) Even P Ws. 2 to 4 were of the view that LW-1 Ram subba Reddy had seen the occurrence and had given the report to the Police, but FIR also did not contain the name of any of the assailants. Unfortunately, LW-1 Ram Subba Reddy died before the trial. (4) The list: of the passengers in Ex. (3) Even P Ws. 2 to 4 were of the view that LW-1 Ram subba Reddy had seen the occurrence and had given the report to the Police, but FIR also did not contain the name of any of the assailants. Unfortunately, LW-1 Ram Subba Reddy died before the trial. (4) The list: of the passengers in Ex. P-4, which according to the prosecution, was prepared immediately after the occurrence had taken place, and which was the most important document to prove that PWs. 2 to 4 and the deceased were travelling by the same bus, does not even find a mention in tine charge sheet. It was not even produced with the charge sheet. It was only produced after six months of filing of the charge sheet, as has [been admitted by PW-21 that Ex. P-4 was filed in Court on 25. 06. 1991. (5) There is interpolation in the names of accused even in the inquest report and even the Inspector of police does not know as to who made the interpolations. (6) It is correct as contended by learned Public prosecutor that inquest report is not piece of admissible evidence but it is not correct to say that such interpolations would have no effect on prosecution, because such interpolations show that prosecution has not come with true facts. Even interpolations in case diaries were taken into consideration by Supreme Court in Mohd. Zahid v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi , AIR 1998 SC 2023 . It is also contended that discrepancy, overwriting, omission or contradiction would way against the prosecution unless they are explained. In this connection, reference is given to the judgment of Supreme court in State of U. P. v. Kaushal Kishore singh , (20q6) 1 SCC (Cri)661. In this case, Supreme Court refused to give any credence to the discrepancies and interpolations in the FIR on the ground that they were not put to investigating officer. The Supreme court said, wo argument on the basis of an alleged discrepancy, overwriting, omission or contradiction in the inquest report can be entertained unless the attention of the author thereof is drawn to the said fact and he is given an opportunity to explain when he is examined as a witness in caurt". In the present case, specifically the investigating officer had been asked about the interpolations in the inquest report. In the present case, specifically the investigating officer had been asked about the interpolations in the inquest report. He did not give any reason, and as a matter of fact, stated that he was nol aware as to who had made those interpolations. (7) According to the Inspector of Police, statements of witnesses including PWs. 2 to 4, were recorded by him on 05. 12. 1990 and according to the Inspector of CBCID, the statements were recorded by him on 11. 12. 1990 and one set of the statements was suppressed, (8) Names of PWs. 2 to 4 were not mentioned in the charge sheet as eyewitnesses and even their statements recorded, were not filed along with the charge sheet. (9) The Depot Manager who signed Ex. P-4, was not produced as a witness. ( 37 ) I have gone through the opinion of Smt. Justice T. Meena kumari and Sri Justice K. C. Bhanu and I am in agreement with the opinion of Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari. It may also be pointed out at this juncture that in terms of Section 392 Cr. P. C. , the matter has now to be decided in accordance with my opinion, In this connection, reference can be made to the judgment1, of Supreme Court in State of u. P. v. Kaushal Kishore Singh (3rd supra ). In this judgment, reference was given to Dharam Singh v. State of U. P. , 1962supp (3)SCR769. in which the supreme Court held, "all that Section 429 says is that the opinion of the two judges who disagree shall be laid before another Judge who, after giving such hearing, if any, as he thinks fit, shall deliver his opinion and the judgment or order should be in accordance -with such opinion. Now it is obvious that when the opinions of the two Judges are placed before a third Judge he would consider those two opinions and give his own opinion and the judgment has to follow the opinion of the third Judge. Consequently on , that opinion is based the judgment of the court" For the reasons given hereinabove, I allow Criminal Appeal nos. 2643 of 2004 and 2644 of 2004 and set aside the conviction and sentences imposed by (he trial Court against the appellants therein. They shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. Consequently on , that opinion is based the judgment of the court" For the reasons given hereinabove, I allow Criminal Appeal nos. 2643 of 2004 and 2644 of 2004 and set aside the conviction and sentences imposed by (he trial Court against the appellants therein. They shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. They are entitled for refund of fine amount paid, if any. The appeal filed by the State being Criminal Appeal No. 1925 of 2005 is dismissed.