A. GOPAL REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THESE two appeals are filed by A2 and A1 respectively against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Mahila Court, Vijayawada in S. C. No. 159 of 1999 dated 31-03-2005 convicting them for the offence under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC and sentencing them to imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. ( 2 ) INITIALLY four accused were charged for the offence. A4 died during the pendency of the trial. Therefore, prosecution stood abated as against A4. During the pendency of case for trial a3 pleaded pardon by filing an applicationcrl. M. P. No. 286 of 2000. The trial Judge allowed the petition by tendering conditional pardon and he was discharged from the array of accused and examined as P. W. 1. Therefore, A1 and A2 preferred the above appeals. ( 3 ) THE prosecution case shorn of details as follows: The deceased Peddi Naveenram was studying Engineering 2nd year in Bellary. P. W. 2 is the father of the deceased. In July, 1997, he came to his parents house at Vijayawada and fall in love with konejeti Reneladaughter of A1. The deceased and Renela used to met at video shop of P. W. 4, who is the friend of the deceased. Subsequently he lost contact with her, as she stopped in attending the college and could not speak over phone. Two days prior to the date of incident, deceased got a phone call from renela saying "not to talk in future. On the date of incident the deceased and his friend Suresh went to the house of P. W. 8 to take his help to settle the love affair of the deceased. P. W. 8 sent them away stating that students should not fall in love. Thereafter, while the deceased and P. W. 3 were proceeding on scooter to Karnam Bazar, accused chased them, then the deceased stopped the scooter; where the four persons who chased them also got down from the scooter and enquired them as to who is Naveenramdeceased. On the deceased giving his identity A1 also given his identity. Thereafter, while the deceased and P. W. 3 were proceeding on scooter to Karnam Bazar, accused chased them, then the deceased stopped the scooter; where the four persons who chased them also got down from the scooter and enquired them as to who is Naveenramdeceased. On the deceased giving his identity A1 also given his identity. Thereafter, at the request of deceased, both of them walked to some distance and A1 questioned the deceased as to why he was teasing his daughter, the deceased informed that he was in love with her. A2 caught hold the hands of the deceased; Al stabbed the deceased with a knife on his chest. When PW. 3 tried to intervene, P. W. 1 approver caught hold of him and A4 beat him on his neck. The deceased ran away towards southern side and fell down at a distance of 30 yards. P. W. 3 rushed to the house of the deceased and asked P. W. 2father of the deceased to accompany him and took him to the house of P. W. 8; then all of them went to the scene of offence and found the deceased lying down on the floor with blood injuries. After the said incident all the accused went to the house of P. W. 11, where A1 made a telephone call and requested P. W. ll to give a shirt, as his shirt got spoiled in the galata in connection with the affair of his daughter; after changing his shirt all the accused left. ( 4 ) ON 13-07-1997 at about 10. 30 P. M. on finding a boy in a pool of blood P. W. 12 informed the same to the Control room over phone. On receiving the said information, the Sub-Inspector of Policep. W. 14 made a G. D. entryex. P12 and informed the same to Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police and rushed to the scene of offence. Meanwhile, P. W. 13, the Assistant sub-Inspector of Police, Law and Order who was on patrolling duty reached the scene and shifted the deceased to the hospital. On such information, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Law and orderp. W. 21 rushed to the hospital, basing on the report given by P. W. 2 registered a case in Cr. No. 334 of 1997 and issued FIR under Ex. P24. On registering the crime, the Circle Inspector of policep. On such information, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Law and orderp. W. 21 rushed to the hospital, basing on the report given by P. W. 2 registered a case in Cr. No. 334 of 1997 and issued FIR under Ex. P24. On registering the crime, the Circle Inspector of policep. W. 22 took up the investigation, recorded the statement of P. W. 2, recovered the material objects, visited the scene of offence, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased under ex. P15 in the presence of P. W. 16 and sent the dead body to postmortem examination. P. W. 20, the Professor of Forensic medicine, G. G. H. , Vijayawada conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased on 14-07-1997 and opined that the cause of death was due to shock and hemorrhage and issued Ex. P12 postmortem certificate. A1 was arrested on 18-07-1997 and on his confessional statement a knifem. O. 2 was seized under ex. P19. A3 and A4 were arrested on 22-07-1997 in the presence of P. W. 19 and at the instance of A4, scooterm. O. 8 was seized under Ex. P20. The police after completion of investigation laid the charge sheet. ( 5 ) THE plea of the accused is one of denial and claimed for trial. ( 6 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, A3 filed Crl. M. P. No. 286 of 2000 ex. P1 to treat him as an approver and the learned Sessions judge by his order dated 12-06-2000 granted pardon and he became approver. While the case is under trial A4 died. Hence, the case against him abated. ( 7 ) THE prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused examined P. Ws. 1 to 24 and got marked and Exs. P1 to p35 and M. Os. 1 to 9. On behalf of defence, D. Ws. 1 to 3 were examined and Exs. D1 to D5 were marked. ( 8 ) THE learned Sessions Judge on completion of trial and after going through the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses convicted the accused for the offence under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life. ( 9 ) THE accused being aggrieved by the judgment dated 31-03-2005 preferred these appeals challenging the legality and validity of the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower court. ( 9 ) THE accused being aggrieved by the judgment dated 31-03-2005 preferred these appeals challenging the legality and validity of the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower court. ( 10 ) SRI C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for A1 made the following submissions:1. The very fact that A3 turning approver by filing an affidavit in crl. M. P,no,286 of 2000, not recording his statement by the committal court as per section 306 (4) Cr. P. C. and not granting time to make his 164 statement itself vitiates the trial and his evidence cannot be relied upon including the evidence tendered by him by way of affidavit to prove the guilt of the accused. Learned senior counsel was fair enough to submit the procedure adopted by the trial court has been approved by this court in a revisioncrl. R. C. No,954 of 2000 dated 02-01-2002 reported in KONAJETI rajababu v. STATE OF A. P. . 2. Once the prosecution case mainly rests on the evidence of P. W. I (approver), he should be a truthful witness and needs corroboration with material particulars, in view of legal presumption under illustration (b) to Section 114 of the evidence Act. Strong reliance is placed on bhiva v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA for the said proposition. P. W. I played a minor role as he caught hold P. W. 3 when he tried to catch A1; whereas P. W. 3 was set up an eyewitness, whose evidence was disbelieved by the trial court. If the evidence of approver is discarded, there is no other legally acceptable evidence to prove the guilt of A1 and he is entitled to acquittal. 3. There is any amount of suspicion of recovery of knife and shirtm. O. 2 and m. O. 5 respectively and the evidence of p. W. 6black smith who alleged to have sharpened the knife and identified A1 with chevi pogu destroys the prosecution case. 4. When the evidence of P. W. 11 do not corroborate with the evidence of P. W. 1, conviction of Al for the offence on the alleged recoveries cannot be sustainable and entitled for acquittal. ( 11 ) SRI T. Bali Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for A2 while adopting the submissions made by Sri c. Padmanabha Reddy contends that the evidence of P. W. 1 is conflicting with P. W. 3. A2 caught hold the deceased. ( 11 ) SRI T. Bali Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for A2 while adopting the submissions made by Sri c. Padmanabha Reddy contends that the evidence of P. W. 1 is conflicting with P. W. 3. A2 caught hold the deceased. Except the above statement there is no other overtact attributed to A2 and he is falsely implicated and entitled for acquittal. ( 12 ) THE learned Additional Public Prosecutor while sustaining the judgment of the trial court would contend that delay of A3 turning approver is not a fatal to the case and placed reliance on NARAYAN CHETANRAM CHOUDARY v. STATE OF maharashtra. He also contends that even if the evidence of p. W. 3 is excluded, the solitary evidence of P. W. 1 is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused apart from other corroborative evidence of P. W. 6 and recoveries under Ex. P9 in the presence of p. W. 11. ( 13 ) HAVING regard to the rival submissions of the counsel, the point that arises for consideration is:"whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt; if not, the conviction and sentence imposed on them are liable to be set aside or modified. " ( 14 ) WE shall now first deal with the contention that procedure adopted by the trial court without remitting the matter to the committal court for recording the statement under section 164 Cr. P. G. as contemplated under Section 306 Cr. P. C. whether vitiates the trial. ( 15 ) IT is now convenient to consider the submissions in the context of statutory presumption under Sections 133 and 114 of the Evidence Act and the principle laid down in Narayan chetanram Choudarys case (3 supra) in reference to the statutory provisions, which reads thus:"s. 133. An accomplice shall be a competent witness against an accused person; and a conviction is not illegal merely because it proceeds upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. S. 114 The court may presume that an accomplice is unworthy of credit unless he is corroborated in material particulars. "illustration (b) -A, a person of the highest character, is tried for causing a mans death by an act of negligence in arranging certain machinery. S. 114 The court may presume that an accomplice is unworthy of credit unless he is corroborated in material particulars. "illustration (b) -A, a person of the highest character, is tried for causing a mans death by an act of negligence in arranging certain machinery. B, a person of equally good character, who also took part in the arrangement, describes precisely what was done, and admits and explains the common carelessness of A and himself; a crime is committed by several persons A, B and c, three of the criminals, are captured on the spot and kept apart from each other. Each gives an account of the crime implicating D, and the accounts corroborate each other in such a manner as to render previous concern highly improbable ( 16 ) THE Supreme Court in the case of NARAYAN chetanram CHOUDARY (3 supra) held as under:". . . . . Section 133 of the Evidence Act provides that an accomplice is a competent witness against an accused person and the conviction is not illegal merely because it proceeds on uncorroborated testimony of the accomplice. No distinction is made between an accomplice who is or is not an approver. As both have been treated alike, the rule of corroboration applies to both. Accomplices evidence is taken on record as a matter of necessity in cases where it is impossible to get sufficient evidence of a heinous crime unless one of the participators in the crime is disposed to disclose the circumstances within his knowledge on account of tender of pardon. For corroborative evidence the court must look at the broad spectrum of the approvers version and then find out whether there is other evidence to corroborate and lend assurance to that version. The nature and extent of such corroboration may depend upon the facts of different cases. Corroboration need not be in the form of ocular testimony of witnesses and may even be in the form of circumstantial evidence. Corroborative evidence must be independent and not vague or unreliable. The nature and extent of such corroboration may depend upon the facts of different cases. Corroboration need not be in the form of ocular testimony of witnesses and may even be in the form of circumstantial evidence. Corroborative evidence must be independent and not vague or unreliable. Relying upon its earlier judgment in suresh Chandra Bahri case this Court in Niranjan singh v. State of Punjab held that once the evidence of the approver is held to be trustworthy, it must be shown that the story given by approver so far as an accused is concerned, must implicate him in such a manner as to give rise to a conclusion of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Insistence upon corroboration is based on the rule of caution and not merely a rule of law. Further, in the above case the Supreme Court while dealing with the procedure adopted by the trial Court in tendering pardon held as under:""there is no legal obligation on the trial court or a right in favour of the accused to insist for compliance with the requirement of Section 306 (4) Cr. P. C. Section 307 provides a complete procedure for recording the statement of an accomplice subject only to compliance with the conditions specified in sub-section (1) of Section 306. The law mandates the satisfaction of the court granting pardon, that the accused would make a full and true disclosure of the circumstances within his knowledge relative to the offence and to every other person concerned, whether as principal or abettor, in the commission thereof. It is not necessary to comply with the requirement of Section 306 (4) when the pardon is tendered by the trial court. The trial court, in this case has taken all precautions in complying with the provisions of Section 306 (1)before tendering pardon to the accused Raju, who later appeared as PW 2. We do not find any violation of law or illegality in the procedure for tendering the pardon and recording the statement of PW 2. " ( 17 ) UNDISPUTEDLY after the case is committed for trial accused No. 3 made an application in Crl. We do not find any violation of law or illegality in the procedure for tendering the pardon and recording the statement of PW 2. " ( 17 ) UNDISPUTEDLY after the case is committed for trial accused No. 3 made an application in Crl. M. P. No. 286 of 2000 seeking pardon and filed an affidavit along with it expressing his intention to make a true discloser of the facts about commission of the offence and role played by him and accordingly, the trial court passed an order on 12-06-2000 granting pardon to A3 and during the trial he was examined as P. W. 1 on 24-03-2003 and he was cross-examined by the counsel for accused. Questioning the same a revision was filed and this Court after elaborately considering the arguments held that there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order dated 12-06-2000, in tendering conditional pardon to A3 (P. W. 1) and directing him to be discharged from the array of accused to be shown as first witness to the prosecution. ( 18 ) THE Supreme Court in NARAYAN CHETANRAM choudarys case (3 supra) categorically held that Section 306 is applicable in a case where the order of commitment has not been passed and Section 307 would be applicable after commitment of the case but before the judgment is pronounced. In view of the same, we are not inclined to accept the submission made by the learned senior counsel that the trial is vitiated in not recording the statement under Section 164 by the committal Magistrate as contemplated under Section 306 (4)Cr. P. C. No doubt clause (,b) of Section 306 (4) Cr. P. C. directs approver shall not be set at liberty till the termination of trial against the accused persons and the detention of approver must end with the trial, if not already on bail. P. C. No doubt clause (,b) of Section 306 (4) Cr. P. C. directs approver shall not be set at liberty till the termination of trial against the accused persons and the detention of approver must end with the trial, if not already on bail. ( 19 ) THE Supreme Court in SURESH CHANDRA BAHRI v. STATE OF BIHAR held that the dominant object of requiring an approver to be detained in custody until the termination of the trial is not intended to punish the approver for having come forward to give evidence in support of the prosecution but to protect him from the possible indignation, rage and resentment of his associates in a crime whom he has chosen to expose as well as with a view to prevent him from the temptation of saving his one time friends and companions after he is granted pardon and released from custody. It is for these reasons that clause (b) of Section 306 (4) casts a duty on the court to keep the approver under detention till the termination of the trial and thus the provisions are based on statutory principles of public policy and public interest, violation of which could not be tolerated. But one thing is clear that the release of an approver on bail may be illegal which can be set aside by a superior court, but such a release would not have any affect on the validity of the pardon once validly granted to an approver. ( 20 ) THE record indicates that on the date of committal approver was on bail. Accordingly we hold that discharging the accused by the trial court after granting pardon does not arise at that stage. The discharge can be only on completion of trial and there is procedural irregularity in discharging the accused on tendering pardon, which may also lure the accused to support the case of the prosecution as per their wishes. ( 21 ) WE shall now consider the next submission made by the learned senior counsel that truthfulness of the evidence of the approver and its corroboration with the material particulars crime by the accused. ( 21 ) WE shall now consider the next submission made by the learned senior counsel that truthfulness of the evidence of the approver and its corroboration with the material particulars crime by the accused. ( 22 ) IN order to meet the aforesaid arguments of the learned senior counsel for the appellants, we shall now proceed to discuss the law relating to the value of approvers evidence vis-a-vis its corroboration and the extent of reliance that can be placed to judge. ( 23 ) A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court in the case of BHIVA (2 supra) while considering Sections 133 and 114 of the Evidence Act held as under:"the combined effect of Sections 133 and 114, illustration (b) may be stated as follows: according to the former, which is a Rule of law, an accomplice is competent to give evidence and according to the latter which is a Rule of practice it is almost always unsafe to convict upon his testimony alone. Therefore though the conviction of an accused on the testimony of an accomplice cannot be said to be illegal yet the courts will, as a matter of practice, not accept the evidence of such a witness without corroboration in material particulars. The law may be stated in the words of Lord Reading, C. J. in R. v Baskerviller as follows: there is no doubt that the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice is inadmissible in law (R. v. Attwood, 1787, 1 Leach 464 ). But it has been long a Rule of practice at common law for the judge to warn the jury of the danger of convicting a prisoner on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice, and in the discretion of the Judge, to advise them not to convict upon such evidence, but the judge should point out to the jury that it is within their legal province to convict upon such unconfirmed evidence (R. v. Stubbs, Dears 555; In re Meunier, 1894 2 QB 415 ). " ( 24 ) RECENTLY the Supreme Court in K. HASHIM v. STATE of T. N. after noticing the views expressed by it earlier in various cases referred therein observed as under:"although Section 114 Illustration (b)provides that the court may presume that the evidence of an accomplice is unworthy of credit unless corroborated, "may" is not must and no decision of court can make it must. The court is not obliged to hold that he is unworthy of credit. It ultimately depends upon the courts view as to the credibility of evidence tendered by an accomplice,""first, it is not necessary that there should be independent confirmation of every material circumstance in the sense that the independent evidence in the case, apart from the testimony of the complainant or the accomplice, should in itself be sufficient to sustain conviction. As Lord reading says:""indeed, if it were required that the accomplice should be confirmed in every detail of the crime, his evidence would not be essential to the case; it would be merely confirmatory of other and independent testimony. " (Baskerville case, All er p. 42 B-C)All that is required is that there must be some additional evidence rendering it probable that the story of the accomplice (or complainant) is true and that it is reasonably safe to act upon it. Secondly, the independent evidence must not only make it safe to believe that the crime was committed but must in some way reasonably connect or tend to connect the accused with it by confirming in some material particular the testimony of the accomplice or complainant that the accused committed the crime. This does not mean that the corroboration as to identification must extend to all the circumstances necessary to identify the accused with the offence. Again, all that is necessary is that there should be independent evidence which will make it reasonably safe to believe the witnesss story that the accused was the one, or among those, who committed the offence. The reason for this part of the rule is that:"a man who has been guilty of a crime himself will always be able to relate the facts of the case, and if the confirmation be only on the truth of that history, without identifying the persons, that is really no corroboration at all. . . . It would not at all tend to show that the party-accused participated in it. "thirdly, the corroboration must come from independent sources and thus ordinarily the testimony of one accomplice would not be sufficient to corroborate that of another. But of course the circumstances may be such as to make it safe to dispense with the necessity of corroboration and in those special circumstances a conviction so based would not be illegal. "thirdly, the corroboration must come from independent sources and thus ordinarily the testimony of one accomplice would not be sufficient to corroborate that of another. But of course the circumstances may be such as to make it safe to dispense with the necessity of corroboration and in those special circumstances a conviction so based would not be illegal. I say this because it was contended that the mother in this case was not an independent source. Fourthly, the corroboration need not be direct evidence that the accused committed the crime. It is sufficient if it is merely circumstantial evidence of his connection with the crime. Were it otherwise, "many crimes which are usually committed between accomplices in secret, such as incest, offences with females" (or unnatural offences) "could never be brought to justice". (See M. O. Shamsudhin v. State of Kerala.) ( 25 ) THE test of credibility of accomplice for conviction, it has to be seen whether the truthful evidence passed the test of reliability. The court would have to consider whether taken as a whole and in the light of facts and circumstances of the case, it was credible version or not (See AIR 1970 SC 1006 ). The corroboration must connect the accused with the crime. The corroborative evidence should tend to show that the story of an accomplice that the accused committed the crime is true. It is well settled that one tainted evidence cannot corroborate another tainted evidence. ( 26 ) AS regards corroboration of accomplice witness, it is not necessary that there should be independent corroboration of every material circumstance. All that is required is that there must be some additional evidence rendering it probable that the story of the accomplice is true and that it is reasonably safe to act upon it. Since corroboration of material parts of the story connecting the accused with the crime as well satisfy the reasonable minds that the approver can be regarded as a truthful witness. Courts are naturally reluctant to act on such tainted evidence unless it is corroborated in material particulars by the independent evidence. Since corroboration of material parts of the story connecting the accused with the crime as well satisfy the reasonable minds that the approver can be regarded as a truthful witness. Courts are naturally reluctant to act on such tainted evidence unless it is corroborated in material particulars by the independent evidence. It is settled principle of law if a judge convicts an accused on the sole testimony of accomplice it is necessary that the judge should give some indication in his judgment that he had the rule in mind and should proceed to give reasons for considering it unnecessary to require corroboration on the facts of the particular case before him and show why he considers it safe to convict without corroboration in the particular case. (See State of Bihar v. Basawan Singh ( AIR 1958 SC 500 )) ( 27 ) THE Supreme Court in ABDUL SATTAR V. UNION territory held that if there is no conspiracy, association of co-accused with the process of murdering the deceased is difficult to believe. Once it is clear that the accused has not intended to murder the deceased when they left the village, accomplice on his own showing had never agreed, until he was prepared to hold the legs of the deceased at the time he was murdered, to do away with the life of the deceased. It would be risky to base the conviction particularly in respect of a serious charge like murder and accordingly set aside the conviction awarded by the High Court: from that of death sentenced imposed by the Sessions Judge. ( 28 ) THE prosecution case for the sake of scrutiny of evidence and discussion may be bifurcated into two parts: one relating to conspiracy of the accused person to eliminate the deceased and the other relating to execution part of it. ( 29 ) THE examination of approveranjaneyulu (P. W. 1)was commenced on 24-03-2003 after he was granted pardon on 12-06-2000, in which he deposed that A1 who is running a gold shop at Vijayawada possesses Ac. 0. 20 cts. ( 29 ) THE examination of approveranjaneyulu (P. W. 1)was commenced on 24-03-2003 after he was granted pardon on 12-06-2000, in which he deposed that A1 who is running a gold shop at Vijayawada possesses Ac. 0. 20 cts. of land at Velpuru village, he is attending to the agricultural works from Vijayawada on 13-07-1997, A1 requested to accompany him for paying the amount to the proclainer after settling the accounts, A1 discussed with the owner of proclainer for some time; thereafter all the four went to brandy shop at Punadipadu, where A1 purchased two beer bottles and all of them consumed it; thereafter, himself, Al, A2 and A4 started on scooters towards vijayawada; on the way Al stopped his vehicle by the side of the road, went to some distance and returned back with a polythin bag, took out a knife from the said bag and kept the same underneath his scooter mat; the said cover contains another knife and two axes, he kept those weapons in the scooter dikky of A2. On seeing the said weapons we asked why he brought those weapons, for that A1 replied one boy by name naveenramdeceased is teasing his daughter and he decided to see his end. Accordingly, all the four started on scooters and followed deceased and A3; deceased stopped his scooter in front of the gate, they also stopped the vehicles. Al asked them who is deceasednaveenram among the two; deceased revealed his identity; on coming to know the identity, A1 asked the deceased as to why he is chasing his daughter, for that the deceased requested A1 to come aside for discussing the matter. At that juncture, A2 caught hold the hands of the deceased, A1 stabbed the deceased with a knife on his chest, when P. W. 3 tried to intervene, P. W. 1 caught hold his hands, A4 beat on his head. After receiving injury, the deceased ran nearly about 30 feet towards southern side and fell down on the road margin. Then all of them proceeded on scooters; after proceeding to some distance, A1 rubbed the blood stained knife to his scooter and thrown it away into the bushes and went the house of P. W. 11 where he changed his washed the scooter with two buckets of water, kept the other knife and axes on the sunshade of the window of the said house. Thereafter, Al gave him Rs. 500/- for consuming liquor. He identified M. O. 1knife used for stabbing the deceased and also identified M. Os. 2, 3 and 4another knife and axes kept on the sunshade of the window by Al. He admitted that his 2nd daughters marriage was performed after the said incident; he has, no driving license or scooter of his own and he is an illiterate; he can identify the scooters, which fact has not been stated in his affidavit filed in support of crl. M. P. No. 286 of 2000. He did not know the reason why A1 took him along with others till they reach Vijayawada. He admitted that till the incident occurs he does not know the deceased. ( 30 ) P. W. 2, the father of the deceased stated that he resides in R. T. C. Colony, Vijayawada, on the date of incident at about 9. 30 P. M. the deceased went towards Karanam Bazar on the scooter along with his friends saying that he will come soon; after some time P. W. 3 hurriedly came to his house and took to the house of Kadiyala Buchi Babup. W. 8, where P. W. 3 introduced him as the father of the deceased. At that time P. W. 8 received a phone call and during the said conversation P. W. 8 questioned the caller as to why they beat instead of discussing the matter with elders and also informed the caller that father of the deceased is there and requested the caller to discuss with him, when P. W. 8 was about to hand over the receiver, the caller disconnected the phone. At that juncture, P. W. 8 questioned about bloodstains on the shirt of P. W. 3 and to verify where the deceased and if necessary take him to hospital. P. W. 8 informed him that his son was beaten and the situation may arise to admit him in the hospital. While he was going to his house, P. W. 3 came on a scooter in an opposite direction and informed that accused beat the deceased and he died. P. W. 3 took him to the spot and went away on scooter, where he found the deceased lying in a pool of blood by the side of road margin near to a car in front of house No. 94. P. W. 3 took him to the spot and went away on scooter, where he found the deceased lying in a pool of blood by the side of road margin near to a car in front of house No. 94. Thereafter, the deceased was shifted to government General Hospital, Vijayawada, where the doctors declared as dead. He made Ex. P2report to the police. In the cross-examination, he admitted that he cannot identify the persons who proceeded along with his son and no Test identification Parade was held to identify P. W. 3nani. ( 31 ) P. W. 3, the photographer stated that the deceased used to visit video shop of P. W. 4 frequently, therefore, the deceased and P. W. 4 became friends. One week prior to the date of incident, he received a phone call from a girl, deceased talked with that girl for some time. After that the deceased informed about his love affair with Reneeladaughter of A1. On 13-07-1997 the deceased and his friendsuresh came to his house at 9. 30 P. M. and asked him to go over to the house of p. W. 8 to discuss the love affair, accordingly all of them went to the house of P. W. 8. On enquiry by P. W. 8 the deceased informed about his coming i. e. to discuss his love affair, then P. W. 8 informed that he knows Al and asked them to go away stating that students should not fall in love, then all the three proceeded on scooter of the deceased, Suresh got down at Sarojini Devi hospital; himself and the deceased proceeded towards Karanam bazar, then they noticed about following of another scooter, deceased stopped the scooter in front of his house gate, two scooters which followed them also stopped, four persons got down from the scooter, one person wearing chevi pogulu came near to them and enquired as to who is Naveenramdeceased, the deceased revealed his identity, then the deceased enquired the identity of the said person, then A1 revealed his identity, after that both of them walked to a little distance, Al asked the deceased why he is teasing his daughter, deceased informed that he fell in love with her. At that juncture A2 caught hold the deceased, Al stabbed with a knife on his chest, when he tried to intervene, A3 (P. W. I) caught hold and A4 beat on his neck portion. After some time he rushed to the verandah of deceaseds house and pressed the calling bell, P. W. 2 opened the door, he asked P. W. 2 to come urgently by wearing dress and took him to the house of P. W. 8 thinking that the accused might have taken the deceased there. P. W. 8 enquired about the bloodstains found on his shift and informed that the accused beat the deceased and asked him to verify the same. When he went to the road he found the deceased in a pool of blood in front of a car. While he was returning on a scooter to the house of P. W. 8, he found P. W. 2 coming to his house by walk, then he took P. W. 2 to the place of incident and proceeded to his house changed the dress and went away to Machilipatnam in a bus. After ten days police came and examined him. In the cross-examination he admitted that he did not inform the events that took place on 13-07-1997 to any one till the police examined him. On the second occasion when he picked the father of the deceased to the house of P. W. 8, he did not observe where the deceased was lying. So also, he did not inform to P. W. 8 that four persons chased them on scooter, as he did not know their identity. Till P. W. 8 informed that the deceased was beaten, he does not now about the deceased receiving injuries. Before the magistrate he has stated that he recognized the person, as he was wearing chevi pogulu and he do not know who took the deceased to hospital. For the first time he has seen the accused on the date of incident and on the second occasion he has seen them in District jail, Vijayawada. He stated before the police that he carried the blood stained shirt along with him after changing shirt and thrown out the same in Bandar canal before boarding the bus to Machilipatnam. For the first time he has seen the accused on the date of incident and on the second occasion he has seen them in District jail, Vijayawada. He stated before the police that he carried the blood stained shirt along with him after changing shirt and thrown out the same in Bandar canal before boarding the bus to Machilipatnam. In the cross-examination on behalf of a2 he admitted that he do not remember whether he stated before the police at the time of recording his statement that even before holding the deceased an injury was caused to him. He also admitted that he did not state to the police that one of the persons caught hold the deceased from his backside. ( 32 ) P. W. 4, the owner of Poorna Video shop stated that deceased used to visit his shop now and then so also Reneela. ( 33 ) P. W. 5, who is a resident of Punadipadu, stated that he knows A1 and A2. A1 approached him for supply of proclainer and he supplied the same. On 13-07-1997 while he was in shed, a1 along with three others came to him in the afternoon and informed that he will pay the proclainer chargers within two days. On his offering tea they took the tea and left the place. Out of four persons he can identify A1 and A2 only and cannot identify the other two persons, as they are standing at a distance. ( 34 ) P. W. 6, who is a black-smith by profession and resident of Kankipadu stated that on one Sunday A1 brought two knives and two axes and requested to sharpen them as he require them immediately, accordingly he sharpened the knives and axes. Five days after that police came to his shop to identify the articles in the police station. In the cross-examination he admitted that he informed the police that the person who is short, black in complexon and wearing chevi pogu approached him for sharpening. He denied the suggestion that A1 is not having any hole to wear chevi pogu or there was no occasion for him to wear it. ( 35 ) P. W. 7 speaks about deceased and two others visiting the house of P. W. 8. P. W. 8 corroborates about three boys visiting his house. He denied the suggestion that A1 is not having any hole to wear chevi pogu or there was no occasion for him to wear it. ( 35 ) P. W. 7 speaks about deceased and two others visiting the house of P. W. 8. P. W. 8 corroborates about three boys visiting his house. One boy by namesuresh informed him about the love affair of deceased with the daughter of A1 then he advised that it is not proper for the young boys like them to fell in love and sent them out. After one and half hour Suresh, P. W. 3 and an elderly person came to his house; Suresh introduced that person as father of the deceased. At that time he received a phone call, the caller informed about ghalata in the adjoining colony, when he handed over the receiver to P. W. 2 the caller disconnected the phone call. He do not know A1, A2 and A4 and he did not state to the police at the time of examination that he received a phone call from A1. ( 36 ) P. W. 9 stated that on 13-07-1997 himself and his friendvenkateswara Rao went to Alankar theatre to witness annamayya picture. At that time two scooters stopped in front of them, A1 got down from the scooter and went into NSM Public school. He stated that he identified A1, A2, A4 and another person in the Test Identification Parade held in Sub.-Jail, vijayawada. In the cross-examination he stated that there is no specific reason for the Venkateswara Rao to inform about the identity of A1 on the said date, A1 proceeded to NSM School road on his scooter and he did not state that A1 went to the said street by walk. He also stated that none questioned about his witnessing Al and others on 13-07-1997 till he was examined on 24-07-1997. ( 37 ) P. W. 10, a practicing advocate at Vijayawada stated that at 11 P. M. when he was proceeding on scooter towards saibaba temple road he found A1 and others proceeding towards stella College from Saibaba temple on scooters. Out of three persons two were wearing lungies and one was wearing pant and shirt. He identified A1, A2, A4 and another in the Test identification Parade held in Sub-Jail, Vijayawada and his statement was recorded by the Magistrate. Out of three persons two were wearing lungies and one was wearing pant and shirt. He identified A1, A2, A4 and another in the Test identification Parade held in Sub-Jail, Vijayawada and his statement was recorded by the Magistrate. In the cross-examination he admitted that he got little acquaintance with A1. On 25-07-1997, the police came and recorded his statement i. e. 12 days after the incident; he did not state in Ex. P8 that he could identify the persons who have proceeded on scooters on 13-07-1997, so also he did not furnish the descriptive particulars of the persons found by him at Saibaba temple. ( 38 ) P. W. 11, who declared as hostile, stated that while they are in dining hall, A1 took card less phone to the bedroom talked for some time; her husband went to the bedroom and at the request of Al provided him a shirt. She stated that she did not notice any bloodstains on the shirt of A1 and did not state about A1 washing his shirt in the basin of kitchen room. ( 39 ) P. W. 12, a neighbour stated that on hearing cries he came out from his house and found P. W. 2, his wife and his daughter running towards House No. 92. He also went there and found a boy in a pool of blood. With a hope of saving his life, he informed the same to the police control room over telephone. ( 40 ) P. W. 13, who worked as Assistant Sub-Inspector of police from 1996 to 1998, stated that while he was on patrolling duty on 13-07-1997 he received a message from control room stating that one engineering student is lying with injuries at saibaba Temple. He reached there and found a person lying with injuries. Thereafter, the father of the boy reached there and took the injured to the hospital. He stayed there guarding the scene of offence. ( 41 ) P. W. 15 narrated the events that have taken place on the date of incident; about Inspector of Police seizing shirt m. O. 5. ( 42 ) P. W. 16, who is one of the mediators for holding inquest over the dead body of the deceased, in the cross-examination stated that he do not know who is P. W. 11; the blood relatives of the deceased were present and narrated the incident. ( 42 ) P. W. 16, who is one of the mediators for holding inquest over the dead body of the deceased, in the cross-examination stated that he do not know who is P. W. 11; the blood relatives of the deceased were present and narrated the incident. ( 43 ) P. W. 17, who is the owner of restaurant reported about lying the scooter of the deceased to the Patama Police station. ( 44 ) P. W. 18, who worked as Village Assistant Officer (V. A. O.) in 1997, stated that on 18-07-1997 in between 6 and 7 p. M. the Circle Inspector and Sub-Inspector of Police came to his office and requested him and another V. A. O. to act as mediators for drafting panchanama. He along with police personnel went towards Kasturibaipet Red Circle, the C. I. of police called one person who was in disturbed mind, but he has not responded. All of them went nearer to him and enquired his identity, who informed as Raja Babu (A1) and confessed about the commission of offence and promised to show the place where he thrown out the weapon. Himself, police personnel and Al proceeded to Rout no. 5, stopped the jeep by the side of road went to a distance of 30 yards, which was full of bushes. A1 went to the bush and picked out a knifem. O. 2 at 10 P. M. and the same was seized under a cover of panchanamaex. P19. In the cross-examination he stated that there are no public at the place where M. O. 2 was seized and it was full of bushes. ( 45 ) P. W. 20, the doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased found the following anti-mortem injury: elliptical stab injury measuring 3. 5 cm x 1. 5 cm x 4 cm obliquely placed in the epigastriam occupying the midline of abdominal wall, coursing obliquely upwards and backwards, penetrating the pericardium at its antero inferior portion. The pericardial sac contained 100 cc of blood and blood clots. The margins of the external wound are clean cut. , ( 46 ) P. W. 21 is the Sub-Inspector of Police who registered the case. ( 47 ) P. W. 22, the Circle Inspector of Police, who observed scene of offence, seized blood stained earth, controlled earth under Ex. The pericardial sac contained 100 cc of blood and blood clots. The margins of the external wound are clean cut. , ( 46 ) P. W. 21 is the Sub-Inspector of Police who registered the case. ( 47 ) P. W. 22, the Circle Inspector of Police, who observed scene of offence, seized blood stained earth, controlled earth under Ex. P13, stated that on 18-07-1997 he secured the presence of P. W. 18 and V. V. Chalapathi Raomediators and went to Red Circle Centre at 8 P. M. , on seeing them A1 tried to ran away and made a confession. On the basis of his confession they went to Road No. 5 and picked up a knife from the bushes with the help of torch light under the cover of panchanamaex. P19. He admitted in the cross-examination that A1 complained of ill treatment in the hands of police on the night of 16-07-1997 and 17-07-1997 when he produced before the Magistrate and also about his incapacity to walk properly. On 21-07-1997 A1 complained about the pain injuries to the Magistrate. He also admitted that M. O. 2knife was found in the open place. On the cross-examination by A2 counsel, he stated that he was of the opinion that Kesineni Poornachandar Raop. W. 4 accompanied p. W. 2 to the house of P. W. 8 on the date of incident. At the time of producing Al in the C. D. he specifically mentioned that poornachandar Rao (P. W. 4) and Nani (P. W. 3) are different persons. ( 48 ) P. W. 24 is the Magistrate who speaks about identification of A1, A2 and A5 by P. W. 3 P. Venkateswara Rao and also P. Ws. 9, 10 and 11. ( 49 ) D. W. 1 speaks about admission of A1 in the hospital on 17-07-1997 for the alleged injuries said to have been caused by the police personnel and he was discharged on 21-07-1997. ( 50 ) D. W. 2, who is the father-in-law of A1, stated that A1 was taken into custody on 16-0-7-1997 and lodged in police station. As A1 was in unconscious condition, he sent a telegram to the concerned Magistrate ahd higher officials regarding illegal confinement. ( 51 ) D. W. 3, who examined A1 and issued wound certificate found minor bruise of palm and soles and tenderness guaring rigidity in abdomen. As A1 was in unconscious condition, he sent a telegram to the concerned Magistrate ahd higher officials regarding illegal confinement. ( 51 ) D. W. 3, who examined A1 and issued wound certificate found minor bruise of palm and soles and tenderness guaring rigidity in abdomen. ( 52 ) FROM the evidence as narrated above, it is clear that there is no conspiracy as such by all the accused to eliminate the deceased and in the light of the said conspiracy all the accused proceeded along with approver to Vijayawada and in furtherance of their common intention restrained the deceased in the manner stated and A1 caused the death of the deceasednaveenram. Then remain the commission of the crime and the presence of the accused, approver and P. W. 3, who is an eyewitness to the incident, and the circumstances that lead to commission of the same. ( 53 ) P. W. 3 who witnessed the incident and tried to intervene when A1 stabbing the deceased, approver caught hold p. W. 3 in facilitating A1 to stab the deceased. The lower Court disbelieved the evidence of the prosecution and the presence of p. W. 3 at the scene of offence. The prosecution further in order to connect the chain of circumstances in the murder of deceased to corroborate the presence of P. W. 3, an eyewitnessapprover (P. W. 1) was examined. ( 54 ) P. W. 1 stated that on the request of A1, he went to the owner of the proclainerp. W. 5 where tea was offered to them, thereafter, Al and P. W. 5 discussed some time, thereafter himself, A1, A2 and A4 went on scooter towards Vijayawada, A1 stopped the vehicle, went to some distance and brought a polythin bag containing knifes and axes, put the said cover in the scooter dikky of A2, when they questioned about those weapons, a1 told that the deceased is teasing his daughter and decided to see his end. After identifying the deceased and A1 each other, deceased requested A1 to come aside for discussing the matter, at that time A2 came behind back and caught hold the hands of the deceased, A1 took out a knife and stabbed the deceased on his chest. When P. W. 3 tried to intervene, A3 (P. W. 1) caught hold his hands A4 beat on his head, due to which he fell down. When P. W. 3 tried to intervene, A3 (P. W. 1) caught hold his hands A4 beat on his head, due to which he fell down. Thereafter, Al went into the house of P. W. 11, changed the shirt washed the scooter with two buckets of water, put the other knife and axes on the sunshade of the window of P. W. 11s house. This witness identified M. O. 1 is, the knife used by A1 in stabbing the deceased. M. O. 2 is another knife. When a suggestion is made to him that wehther M. O. 1 is the weapon used by A1, he stated that he can definitely say A1 used M. O. 1 weapon for stabbing the deceased. ( 55 ) P. W. 3 stated that four persons got down from the scooters; out of which one person having chevi pogu enquired about who is Naveenramdeceased and asked why he is teasing his daughter. At that juncture, one stout black person caught hold the deceased, A1 stabbed the deceased on his chest. When he tried to intervene, another person caught hold his hands, A4 gave a blow, due to which he fell down. After woke up he rushed to the Varandah of the deceased, P. W. 2 opened the door. He has not informed anything to him and asked him to follow to the house of P. W. 8. When the stabbing of deceased was witnessed by him, taking P. W. 2 to the house of P. W. 8 and not informing the event that taken place on 13-07-1997 to any one till the police examined itself falsifies his presence at the scene of offence. ( 56 ) THE lower court rightly rejected his evidence. In the normal conduct of a person who is a friend of the deceased should first inform what he saw atleast while taking P. W. 2 on his scooter. The manner, in which he took P. W. 2 to the scene of occurrence and left the scooter will improbablies the case of the prosecution. Further, A1 does not have a hole to wear the chevi pogu, as was stated by P. Ws. 3 and 6. Therefore, the story of p. W. 3 witnessing the incident appears to be woven by the prosecution. P. W. 3 did not state to the police that one person caught hold the deceased from his backside. Further, A1 does not have a hole to wear the chevi pogu, as was stated by P. Ws. 3 and 6. Therefore, the story of p. W. 3 witnessing the incident appears to be woven by the prosecution. P. W. 3 did not state to the police that one person caught hold the deceased from his backside. In view of the above evidence the alleged minor role played by the approver in his preventing P. W. 3 when tried to intervene gets vanished. Once we do not have the satisfaction that P. W. 1 is a reliable witness, the worth of his evidence is lost and even by seeking corroboration such evidence cannot be foundation of a conviction. Further, p. W. 18 stated that in his presence accused made a confession, which lead to recovery of M. O. 2knife in the bushes under the cover of panchanamaex. P18 which fact has been admitted by p. W. 22. Once the prosecution miserably failed to prove the user of M. O. 1 or M. O. 2 for stabbing the deceased and the evidence leading to the recovery of knife used in the crime is not corroborated with the evidence of P. W. 1approver, the link appears to have been irreparably lost, and it is unsafe to rely upon his evidence to convict the accused in view of material contradictions as pointed above. The prosecution has not come up with true version and the manner in which the offence has taken place. As rightly pointed by the learned senior counsel, if the evidence of P. W. 1 is discarded, there is no other evidence to connect the accused with the commission of offence. ( 57 ) AFTER going through the whole evidence, perusing the record and having given our anxious consideration to the submissions made before us, we have come to an unmistakable conclusion that the prosecution miserably failed to corroborate the material particulars about participation of P. W. 1 in conspiring with the accused for commission of the offence that the deceasednaveenram was caught hold by A2 and A1 stabbed him to death; whereas approver (A3) caught hold PW3 when tried to intervene while A1 stabbing the deceased, no credence can be given to the evidence of approver and recoveries effected. The conviction of the appellants in these circumstances appears to have been totally unjustified and we are inclined to give benefit of doubt to the accused. ( 58 ) ACCORDINGLY, we allow both the appeals. The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court on the appellants (A1 and A2) for the offence under Section 302 r/w 34 ipc are accordingly set aside and they are set at liberty forthwith, if they are not required in any other case.