J U D G M E N T This criminal appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 02-07-2001 passed in S.C.No.560 of 1999 by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, wherein the learned Additional Sessions Judge while acquitting the accused-appellant of the charge under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, convicted him of the offence under Sections 304, Part-I, and 324 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.300/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 304, Part-I, of IPC and also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC, while ordering to run both the sentences concurrently. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 13-12-1998 at about 10-30 hours PW-1 and his sons’ viz., the accused; one Damodar Reddy (hereinafter called as the deceased) and PW-2 were assembled at their agriculture well with an intention to share paddy as well as other properties. At about 12-00 hours on the same day while they were discussing about the same, the accused stabbed on the chest of the deceased with a knife and also stabbed on the stomach of PW-2 causing bleeding injuries. Immediately, the deceased was shifted to the Government Civil Hospital, Suryapet for treatment, who succumbed to the injuries. PW-2 himself admitted in the hospital for treatment. Based on the report given by PW-1 a case in Crime No.62 of 1998 was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of IPC. PW-8 conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased on 13-12-1998 at about 4-00 P.M. and issued Ex.P3 postmortem report. PW-8 also examined PW-2 and issued Ex.P4 wound certificate opining that the injuries sustained by him are simple nature. During the course of investigation, PW-12 rushed to the Government Civil Hospital, Suryapet examined PWs.1 to 4 and two others and recorded their statements, conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of PW-6 and another, and after completion of investigation laid charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of IPC. 3. 3. On appearance of the accused and on hearing both sides, the learned Sessions Judge framed a charge under Sections 302 and 307 of the IPC against the accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. In support of its case the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 13 and got marked Exs.P1 to P10. On behalf of defence, DW-1 was examined and Exs.D1 to D6 were marked. 5. As already stated, on an analysis of both oral and documentary evidence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the appellant is guilty of the offences under Sections 304 Part-1, and 324 of IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as stated supra. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant has come up with the present criminal appeal. 6. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the judgment as well as other material on record. 7. The entire case rests on the evidence of PWs.1 to 5. PW-1 is the father of the deceased and the accused, PW-2 is the mother of the deceased, PWs.3 and 4 are the alleged mediators in whose presence the panchayat and the attack had taken place and PW-5 is an independent witness, who was present at the time of the said panchayat. 8. The crucial aspect in this case is the earlier complaint given by PW-1, which was totally suppressed. In fact, in the cross-examination though at one stage PW-1 has stated that he has not given any prior complaint other than Ex.P1 to the police, immediately thereafter, he again stated that on 13-12-1998 he gave a complaint to the police alleging that Satyanarayana Reddy Venkat Reddy and Ram Murthy abetted the accused to commit the said offence. Later PW-1 on his own accord and on humanitarian grounds withdrew the said complaint against the said persons. 9. The said evidence of PW-1 is supported by PW-12, who is the investigating officer. Later PW-1 on his own accord and on humanitarian grounds withdrew the said complaint against the said persons. 9. The said evidence of PW-1 is supported by PW-12, who is the investigating officer. According to him, he was working as Sub Inspector of Police at Thirumalagiri Police Station from 08-11-1995 to 15-05-1999 and on 14-12-1998 he received Ex.P1, before receipt of the said EX.P1, he received another complaint from PW-1 on the very same issue against three persons and PW-1 thereafter gave a requisition on the same day after two hours requesting him to withdraw the complaint against other three persons against whom he gave complaint. He also stated that he did not register the complaint given by PW-1 on 14-12-1998 against three persons as PW-1 gave a requisition to him withdrawing the case within one or two hours. The said evidence throws a shadow of doubt as to whether the prosecution has come up with the true version. 10. The entire fabric of the prosecution case collapses if the F.I.R. is wholly fabricated. When once the evidence of PWs.1 and 12 is accepted that there was an earlier report prior to Ex.P1 and the same was withdrawn by PW-1 definitely it is a circumstance, which goes in favour of the accused. In fact, even according to PW-1 he has stated in the earlier report about the participation of three other persons at whose instance the appellant has committed the said offence. In a situation like this, the Supreme Court in MOHAN LAL v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN(1) observed as follows: “We fail to understand why Thanedar took interest in calling somebody else for written report by it and when he himself had gone to the police station and given a report obviously orally the so called earlier report is not coming on record and the reasons for non production of said report is best known to the prosecution. No explanation has been offered as to why earliest version has not been brought on record. The learned Sessions Judge as well as the High Court was of the opinion that this is a confusion and there has been only one report as Ext. P7 as has been stated by the investigating officer. But in view of the categorical statement of PW 7 it is difficult to accept the said conclusion of the Courts below. The learned Sessions Judge as well as the High Court was of the opinion that this is a confusion and there has been only one report as Ext. P7 as has been stated by the investigating officer. But in view of the categorical statement of PW 7 it is difficult to accept the said conclusion of the Courts below. Then, again no plausible explanation has been offered as to how the dead body was brought from the place of occurrence which is the well to the Babool tree near the school in the village where, the post mortem was conducted. The witness PW 7 has also made several omissions and contradictions from his earliest version under Section 161 and (sic) have been duty confronted also while in the cross-examination. Only explanation is the earliest version is wrong.” 11. In the light of the above, this Court is of the view that it is only to help those three persons, the earlier report is suppressed and the second report i.e. Ex.P1 is given, which in my considered view enures to the benefit of the appellant. 12. In the result, the criminal appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant-accused in S.C.No.560 of 1999 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, is set aside. The bail bond of the appellant shall stand cancelled. The fine amount paid by the appellant shall be refunded to him after appeal time is over. --X—