P. LAKSHMANA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal filed by the appellant/a-1 against the conviction and sentence dated 5-12-2003 passed in Sessions Case No. 902 of 1998 on the file of V Additional District and sessions Judge, Guntur. ( 2 ) THE relevant facts that are necessary for the disposal of the appeal in brief are as follows: The Inspector of police filed this case against the appellant and another arraying the appellant as A-1 and another as A-2 before I additional Munsif Magistrate, Tenali alleging that on 17-7-1998 at about 10. 45 p. m. A-1 hacked the deceased Meeravali with a butchered knife and A-2 shared common intention with A-1 and thereby both the accused committed the offence punishable under section 302 and 302 read with 34 IPC. ( 3 ) ON the said allegation, the learned magistrate took the case on file and after observing all formalities duly committed the case to the Sessions Judge by virtue of the committal order passed under Section 209 ipc. On the basis of the committal order, the learned Sessions Judge made overthe same to the V Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), guntur for trial. The learned Judge after hearing both sides, framed charges under section 302 IPC against A-1 and under section 302 read with 34 IPC against A-1 and a-2, read over and explained to them, for which both of them pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. ( 4 ) THE learned Judge conducted trial, during which the prosecution examined P. Ws. 1 to 17 and exhibited Ex. P-1 to P-27 and marked m. Os. 1 to 8. Ex. D-1 to D-4 were marked at the instance of accused. Afterthe prosecution evidence was closed, the learned Sessions judge examined the accused under section 313 Cr. P. C. for which they denied the incriminating evidence appeared againstthem. The accused did not examine any witness on their behalf and their case is one of total denial. ( 5 ) CONSIDERING the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution and the total denial of the accused, the learned Judge found A-1 guilty of the offence punishable under section 302 IPC and convicted him for the said offence and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of rs. 5000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months simple imprisonment. 5000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months simple imprisonment. ( 6 ) AGGRIEVED of the conviction and sentence, A-1 preferred the present appeal contending that the judgment of the Sessions judge is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case and that P. Ws. 1 and 2 were planted witnesses and their presence at the scene of offence is highly doubtful, that as per the post mortem report the deceased received 8 injuries, but P. Ws. 1 and 2 did not state all injuries, therefore their presence at the scene of offence and at the time of offence is doubtful. He also contended that P. Ws. 1 and 2 are related to the accused and no independent witnesses were examined and that the recovery of weapon and alleged confession leading to the discovery has not been proved and the panch witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution. He also contended that the learned Sessions Judge failed to observe that there was abnormal delay in sending the FIR to the Magistrate and also failed to note the discrepancies between the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2. ( 7 ) THE learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant Smt. A. Gayathri Reddy contended that P. Ws. 1 and 2 are planted witnesses and there was absolutely no motive for A-1 to kill the deceased and both A-1 and deceased were good friends and that in fact p. W. 1 was aggrieved of the deceased as the deceased had complained against him. She further submitted that no independent witness was examined to speak about the deceased last seen in the company of P. W. 1 and P. W. 2. She further submitted that according to the prosecution, P. W. 12 had given gold ornaments to L. W. 3 and L. W. 3 has entrusted those ornaments to A-1 and on the date of incident L. W. 3 insisted A-1 to show those ornaments and in that connection L. W. 3 went to the shopof A-1. But P. W. 12 in his evidence stated that L. W. 3 informed him that his ornaments have been entrusted to the deceased and therefore it is clear that the presence of P. Ws. But P. W. 12 in his evidence stated that L. W. 3 informed him that his ornaments have been entrusted to the deceased and therefore it is clear that the presence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 regarding the purpose for which they went to the shop of A-1 on the night of the incident along with L. W. 3 falls to ground. The counsel also submitted that the occurrence is a night occurrence and there is no evidence of any independent witness and therefore the appellant/a-1 is entitled forbenefit of doubt. ( 8 ) ON the other hand the learned Additional public Prosecutor supported the judgment of the trial court. ( 9 ) THE points that arise for determination in this appeal are: (1) Whetherthe prosecution succeeded to prove that the death of the deceased was a homicidal death? (2) Whetherthe prosecution succeeded to prove that the appellant is responsible for the homicidal death of the deceased? (3) Whetherthe conviction and sentence passed against the accused is sustainable in law? ( 10 ) AS seen from the evidence of Inspector of Police, who conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased, he found injuries over the dead body and therefore after inquest he sent the dead body for post mortem examination to know the cause of the death. P. W. 16 Dr V. B. Babu stated that on 18-7-1998 at 2. 00 p. m. , he conducted autopsy overthe dead body of Sk. Meeravali and found the following ante mortem injuries. 1. Incised wound of 7 "long x 1' wide x 1" deep from the front of the right external ear to the occiput cutting the underlying muscles, blood vessels, nerves and corresponding vertebra. Transverse in direction. 2. Incised wound of 7" x3"x3" from below the right angle of mandible to the nape of the neck on the right side cutting the underlying muscles blood vessels, nerves and corresponding vertebra. 3. Incised would of 3"x1"x1" over the front of the right side of the beck cutting the underlying muscles, blood vessels and nerves. 4. Incised wound of 7"x1"x1" below the left axilla from the posterior auxiliary fold to the back of the chest, cutting the underlying muscles, blood vessels and nerves. Oblique in direction. 5. 3. Incised would of 3"x1"x1" over the front of the right side of the beck cutting the underlying muscles, blood vessels and nerves. 4. Incised wound of 7"x1"x1" below the left axilla from the posterior auxiliary fold to the back of the chest, cutting the underlying muscles, blood vessels and nerves. Oblique in direction. 5. Incised, elliptical, transverse injury of 3"x1 "x3/4" over the back of the chest on the left side 3" below injury No. 4, cutting muscles, blood vessels and nerves underneath. 6. Incised wound of 5"x3"x3" over the back of the neck on the left side cutting the under lying muscles, blood vessels, nerves and vertebra. 7. Incised wound of 6" x 1 " x 2" just below injury No. 6, transverse in direction. Cutting the 2 under lying muscles, blood vessels and nerves. 8. Incised wound of 2" x 1" x " over the posterior aspect of left forearm cutting the muscles, blood vessels and nerves underneath exposing the bones. He opined that the deceased might have died due to shock and hemorrhage due to multiple injuries. His evidence is supported by Post mortem report Ex. P-25. The evidence of doctor remains unchallenged. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution proved that the death of the deceased sk. Meeravali is homicidal death. Point. No. 2: ( 11 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution, P. Ws. 1, 2 and 5 are the eyewitnesses to the occurrence. P. W. 5 one Madu Babu did not support the case of the prosecution. P. W. 3 Sriramprasad stated that about 3 years back at about 9. 00 p. m. , he closed the flour mill and while he was going towards Sarab Bazar, Tenali, he came to know that Meeravali was murdered and then he went there and found the deceased in a pool of blood and at that time one Hari Babu (P. W. 5) was also present at the dead body. He also stated that subsequently he came to know that accused 1 and 2 murdered the deceased Meeravali but he did not disclose how he came to know of it and therefore this portion of his evidence is of no use. ( 12 ) P. W. 4 is the father of the deceased and he is not an eyewitness tothe occurrence. ( 12 ) P. W. 4 is the father of the deceased and he is not an eyewitness tothe occurrence. According to him, L. W. 3 Srinivasa Rao informed him about the murder of his son. ( 13 ) P. W. 5 Haribabu stated that on that night at about 9. 30 p. m. , he went to Sharab bazar and found P. Ws. 1 and 2 running in opposite direction and when he questioned them, they stated that A-1 and A-2 killed meeraval. This witness was treated hostile, as he did not state that he witnessed A-1 and A-2 running away from the scene of offence. ( 14 ) P. W. 6, whom A-1 sent to bring the keys of his shop, did not support the case of the prosecution. He denied the suggestion that A-1 asked him to bring the keys of the shop on 17-7-1998. ( 15 ) P. WS. 7 to 10 did not support the case of the prosecution. ( 16 ) P. W. 11 is one of the inquest panchayatdars and he is not an eyewitness. ( 17 ) P. W. 12 stated that he gave golden articles to L. W. 3 Karamsetti Srinivasarao and as he could not get the ornaments he went to tenali and asked L. W. 3 and the L. W. 3 informed him that the deceased Meeravali, the worker in his shop, was murdered by some body and that he came to know that the ornaments were entrusted to deceased meeravali for repairs. Therefore, his evidence is contra to the case of prosecution. ( 18 ) P. W. 13 is another panch witness for the alleged arrest of the accused. He did not support the case of prosecution. P. W. 14 another panch witness also did not support the case of prosecution and they stated that their signatures were taken on the panchnama in the police station. ( 19 ) P. W. 15 is a photographer. P. W. 16 is post mortem doctor. P. W. 17 is the C. l. of police. ( 20 ) AS seen from the above-narrated evidence, the only direct evidence available forthe prosecution is the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2. It is in the evidence of P. W. 4, the father of the deceased, that both P. Ws. 1 and 2 are related to the deceased. P. W. 17 is the C. l. of police. ( 20 ) AS seen from the above-narrated evidence, the only direct evidence available forthe prosecution is the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2. It is in the evidence of P. W. 4, the father of the deceased, that both P. Ws. 1 and 2 are related to the deceased. It is also in the evidence that there were ill feelings between a-1 and P. W. 1 and A-1 had beaten P. W. 1. It is in the evidence of P. W. 3 that there is a tea-stall at a distance of 40 to 50 feet from the scene of offence and it will be opened up to 11. 00 p. m. The occurrence said to have been taken place in the Sharap Bazar in front of a shopping complex named "sunkara Sai complex". Therefore, there was a scope for several independent witnesses to witness the incident, but none of them have been examined by the police. There is absolutely no evidence to show that P. Ws. 1 and 2 are in the company of the deceased at the time of attack on the deceased other than the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 themselves. According to P. Ws. 1 and 2, at that time they waited for L. W. 3 to return from the shop of A-1. A-1 and A-2 came down and then A-1 stabbed the deceased stating that he was responsible for L. W. 3 to suspect him and also to stop giving work to him. It is the further case of the P. Ws. 1 and 2 that further L. W. 3 went to the shop of A-1, A-1 sent a boy-P. W. 6 to get the keys of his shop from his house. But P. W. 6 did not support the case of prosecution. He did not speak about the presence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 at that time. He did not state that L. W. 3 had come to the shop of a-1. It is the evidence of P. W. 1 that the deceased Meeravali was a good friend of A-1 and due to friendship A-1 used to gold ornaments for polish work to the deceased meeraval. Therefore, the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 has to be scrutinized with more care and caution. It is the evidence of P. W. 1 that the deceased Meeravali was a good friend of A-1 and due to friendship A-1 used to gold ornaments for polish work to the deceased meeraval. Therefore, the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 has to be scrutinized with more care and caution. ( 21 ) THE conduct of P. Ws. 1 and 2 is highly improbable though both of them are related to the deceased; they did not go to the house of the deceased to inform to the parents of deceased. It is also elicited during the cross examination of P. W. 1 that there were differences between him and A-1 and in that connection he tried to hack with Vuli on A-1 and P. W. 2 supported him in the fight against a-1. It is also in the evidence of P. W. 1 that when A-1 stabbed the deceased he was at a distance of 5 feet. He also stated that at the time of hacking the deceased by A-1 they ran away. At another breath he stated that he made an attempt to save the deceased meeravali but he did not sustain any injuries at that time. Hence, his evidence does not inspire confidence in the mind of the court to base conviction in the light of differences between him and A-1 as elicited by the defence in the cross examination of this witness. Further, it is in the evidence of P. W. 2 that throughout the night himself, P. W. 1 and some other relatives were at the dead body. This piece of evidence is not corroborated by P. W. 1 and other prosecution witnesses. Further, it is in the cross examination of P. W. 5 that immediately after knowing the murder of meeravali (deceased) through P. Ws. 1 and 2 he went to the dead body and by the time he went to the dead body, no one was there. It is also his evidence that either P. W. 1 or P. W. 2 did not turn up to the dead body and there is some drizzling and there is rain. Thus, this piece of evidence falsifies the evidence of p. W. 2 that they waited at the dead body till the morning. According to the father of the deceased, it is L. W. 3 who informed him about the death of the deceased. Thus, this piece of evidence falsifies the evidence of p. W. 2 that they waited at the dead body till the morning. According to the father of the deceased, it is L. W. 3 who informed him about the death of the deceased. He did not state that L. W. 3 informed him that his son was murdered by A-1 and A-2 and also did not inform that while the deceased was in the company of P. Ws. 1 and 2 the deceased was attacked. P. Ws. 1 and 2 did not even go to the police station immediately after the incident. it is the version of both P. Ws. 1 and 2 that they were very much present at the time of offence within a distance of five yards and that the deceased is their relative and friend. If the said version is true and correct, nothing prevented them to either shift the injured to the hospital, or to intimate the same to his parents, but they did not do so. Though the incident said to have been taken place at 10. 30 p. m. they did not go to the police station immediately. According to the S.. of police, they gave report in police station at 0. 30 hours on 18-7-1998. As seen from the FIR Ex. P-26 the police station is situated at a distance of 1 KM from the scene of offence. Though, according to P. Ws. 1 and 2 the incident took place at 10. 30 p. m. , but according to P. W. 3 even by 9 p. m. he came to know that Meeravali was murdered and therefore the offence might have been committed even before 9 p. m. , but not at 10. 00 p. m. , as stated by P. Ws. 1 and 2. There was abnormal delay in going to the police station. It is not as if they remained at the scene of offence watching the dead body. It is the evidence of S.. that no body was there at the dead body. Even according to p. Ws. 1 and 2, they ran away immediately after the incident. From the above evidence, it is very unsafe to believe the evidence of p. Ws. It is the evidence of S.. that no body was there at the dead body. Even according to p. Ws. 1 and 2, they ran away immediately after the incident. From the above evidence, it is very unsafe to believe the evidence of p. Ws. 1 and 2 to come to conclusion in the iight of many discrepancies and also in the absence of other independent or corroborative evidence to establish their presence at the scene of offence. ( 22 ) P. W. 5 stated that himself and P. W. 3 remain at the dead body and P. Ws. 1 and 2 did not turn up to the dead body. Therefore, the conduct of P. Ws. 1 and 2 in not informing any of the relatives of the deceased and in not informing to police immediately gives rise to any amount of suspicion. Of course P. W. 5 stated that he saw P. Ws. 1 and 2 running, informing him that Meeravali was murdered by a-1 and A-2. But the subsequent conduct of p. Ws. 1 and 2 gives raise to any amount of suspicion as to why they did not go to the house of deceased to inform either to his parents or to the police. ( 23 ) FURTHER, it is in the evidence that P. W. 1 had enmity against A-1 as A-1 cautioned the deceased not to entrust the work to P. W. 1. It is also in the evidence that deceased and a-1 were good friends. Under these circumstances, it is improbable to believe that the deceased had grouse against A-1 and a-2 and therefore A-1 bore grudge against the deceased and wanted to do away him and as such the motive as set up by the prosecution is not proved and on the other hand the evidence of P. W. 12 belies the version of prosecution that the ornaments were given to a-1 and as A-1 did not return, L. W. 3 went there on that night. According to the prosecution that is the genesis of the occurrence. In fact the prosecution failed to prove the very genesis of its case. The investigating officer not at all investigated as to whether any jewels were entrusted by L. W. 3 to A-1 and when the said fact is not proved, the question of accused having any grudge against the deceased does not arise. In fact the prosecution failed to prove the very genesis of its case. The investigating officer not at all investigated as to whether any jewels were entrusted by L. W. 3 to A-1 and when the said fact is not proved, the question of accused having any grudge against the deceased does not arise. Further, it is in the evidence that there was drizzling on that night and there was failure of electricity also. The evidence of p. Ws. 1 and 2 do not inspire the confidence of this Court to believe their version to base a conviction against the appellant. ( 24 ) LEARNED counsel forthe appellant/a-1 further contended that nobody knows as to who killed the deceased during the dark night and that it might be that P. Ws. 1 and 2 are responsible for the killing of the deceased and they foisted this false case against the accused in order to escape themselves. However, there is absolutely no evidence to show that p. Ws. 1 and 2 were in the company of deceased at that time near about the scene of offence. In view of the conduct of P. Ws. 1 and 2 subsequent to the incident and as there is an abnormal delay in giving report to the police which is situated at a distance of 1 KM, we are of unable to hold that the appellant/a-1 is responsible for the death of the deceased. In our considered view, he is entitled for benefit of doubt. The learned trial judge did not properly scrutinize the evidence and he simply believed the version given by P. Ws. 1 and 2 without proper scrutiny though they are interested witnesses. After careful scrutiny of the entire evidence and other material available on record, in our considered opinion, it appears that the occurrence took place in a different manner but not in the manner as stated by the prosecution. ( 25 ) IN the result, the criminal appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant/a-1 for the offence under Section 302 IPC in Sessions case No. 902 of 1998 on the file of IV additional Sessions Judge, Guntur are set aside. Accordingly, the appellant/a-1 viz. , thata Venkateswara Rao, shall be set at liberty forthwith, if he is no longer required in any other case. Accordingly, the appellant/a-1 viz. , thata Venkateswara Rao, shall be set at liberty forthwith, if he is no longer required in any other case. Further, the fine amount if any paid shall be refunded to him. .