Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 985 (AP)

Mudragada Nagaraju v. State of A. P.

2007-10-04

D.S.R.VERMA, K.C.BHANU

body2007
JUDGMENT (K.C. Bhanu, J.) Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants-accused Nos. 1 and 4, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State and learned counsel for P.W. 2, who assisted the Court. 2. Since both the appeals are inter-related and arise out of the same judgment, dated 06-05-2005, passed in Sessions Case No. 508 of 2003, they are being heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 3. The appellants are Accused Nos. 1 and 4 (along with Accused Nos. 2 and 3) in the Sessions Case, before the Court below. 4. Aggrieved by the judgment, dated 06-05-2005, in Sessions Case No. 508 of 2003, passed by the XI Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC.), Guntur at Tenali, convicting the accused NO.1 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal code (I.P.C.) and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three (3) months, and also convicting him for the offence under Section 201 IPC and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven (7) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one (1) month; and convicting accused No. 4 for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven (7) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three (3) months, Criminal Appeal Nos. 1016 of 2005 and 618 of 2006, under Section 374 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), have been preferred by Accused Nos. 1 and 4, respectively. 5. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present appeals, as per the prosecution case, may be stated as follows: 6. Accused Nos. 1 to 3 are the residents of Mamillapalli village and accused No.4 is the resident of Guntur. The deceased as well as the prosecution witnesses were also residents of the Mamillapalli village. P .W. 2 is the father of deceased No.2, P.W. 6 is the father of deceased No.1, P.W. 7 is the brother-in-law of deceased No.1, P.W. 8 is the uncle of deceased NO.2 and P.W. 1 is the Sarpanch of the village. 7. Accused No. 1 is the resident of Mamillapalli village. He used to tease the wife of deceased No.1. 7. Accused No. 1 is the resident of Mamillapalli village. He used to tease the wife of deceased No.1. Having come know about this, deceased No.1 and 3 others assaulted accused NO.1 with sticks and in that regard the police registered a case in Crime No. 71 of 2001 under Section 324 read with 34 IPC of T. Sundur Police Station. Later, the wife of deceased No.1 gave a report against accused No.1 at T. Sundur Police Station, which was registered as Crime No. 72 of 2001 under Sections 354 and 506 IPC and the said case was coming for trial. On 20-01-2003, deceased No.1 and his wife are ready to give evidence against accused No. 1 and knowing this, accused No.1 hatched up a plan with accused Nos. 2 and 3 to do away the life of deceased No.1. In pursuance of their pre-plan, on 19-01-2003, accused No.1 along with accused Nos. 2 and 3 went to Guntur and contacted accused No.4, who is the driver of an auto, bearing registration No. AP 7V 5750, for hire of the auto, and all the four persons came to Modukur-Mamillapalli Cross road along with the auto and way-laid for deceased No.1. Soon after they noticed that deceased Nos. 1 and 2 were coming from Modukur on T.V.S. Suzuki Motor Cycle, at about 9.30 p.m. Accused Nos. 1 to 3 attacked deceased Nos.1 and 2. In that process, accused No. 3 beat deceased No.1 on his chest with iron pipes as a result of which deceased Nos. 1 and 2 fell down on the ground from the motor cycle. Accused No.1 axed on deceased Nos. 1 and 2 on their head, accused No.2 stabbed them with a knife on their faces, and accused No.3 beat them with iron pipe, indiscriminately, as a result of which deceased Nos. 1 and 2 received multiple injuries and died instantaneously on the spot. P .W. 3 witnessed the offence. All the accused brought the dead bodies of deceased Nos. 1 and 2 to Kommamuru canal and threw them into the canal. Again the accused came back to the scene of offence and while they were putting the motor cycle in the auto to dispose of the same in order to screen the evidence, P.Ws. 1 and 2 came there on their scooter. On seeing accused Nos. 1 and 2 to Kommamuru canal and threw them into the canal. Again the accused came back to the scene of offence and while they were putting the motor cycle in the auto to dispose of the same in order to screen the evidence, P.Ws. 1 and 2 came there on their scooter. On seeing accused Nos. 1 to 3 lifting the motor cycle into the auto, P.Ws. 1 and 2 got stopped their scooter and questioned them as to why they were lifting the motor cycle into the auto. On that, the accused ran away from the scene of offence. P.Ws.1 and 2 chased the accused and they would only manage to catch accused No.4, but, the other accused were escaped. On being asked by P.Ws. 1 and 2, accused NO.4 revealed that accused Nos. 1 to 3 killed both the deceased and threw the dead bodies into the canal. On that P.Ws. 1 and 2 brought accused No.4 to T. Sundur Police Station and P.W. 1 submitted Ex. P-1, written report, to the Sub-Inspector of Police. 8. On 20-01-2003, at 9.00 a.m., p.ws. 1 and 2 submitted a report to P. W. 12, the Sub. Inspector of Police, T. Sundur Police Station, who registered the same as Crime No. 55 of 2003 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B read with 341 PC and issued Ex. P-11, F.I.R. 9. On 20-01-2003, P.W. 14, the Circle Inspector of Police, T. Sundur Police Station, took up investigation, examined P.Ws. 1 and 2 and recorded their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He interrogated accused NO.4 and recorded his confessional statement. In pursuance of his confessional statement, accused No. 41ed them to KomrnarnuhJ canal where the dead bodies of the deceased were thrown. P.W. 1 identified the dead bodies of the deceased, the same were removed from the canal and kept on the bund. P.W. 14 secured the blood relatives of the deceased, panchayatdars, P.W. 11 and others, and held inquest over the dead bodies of the deceased persons. After completion of inquest, P. W. 14 sent the dead bodies for postmortem examination, proceeded to the scene of offence and prepared Ex. P-12, rough sketch of the scene of offence. He also prepared Ex. P.W. 14 secured the blood relatives of the deceased, panchayatdars, P.W. 11 and others, and held inquest over the dead bodies of the deceased persons. After completion of inquest, P. W. 14 sent the dead bodies for postmortem examination, proceeded to the scene of offence and prepared Ex. P-12, rough sketch of the scene of offence. He also prepared Ex. P-6, observation panchanama of the scene of offence, in the presence of the mediators, P.W. 11 and another and seized M.O. 6 T.V.S. Motor Cycle, M.O. 7-auto, M.O. 23 black colour leather chappals and also M.Os. 14 and 15 - slippers, M.O. 24 - white coloured shirt button. He also seized the blood stained earth and control earth. 10. On 21-01-2003, he recorded the statements of P. Ws. 3, 6, 9, 10 and others and on 01-02-2003 at 12.30 p.m., he arrested accused Nos. 1 to 3 in the presence of the mediators, P.W. 11 and others and recorded their confessional statements. As per the confession, accused No. 1 produced the weapons of M.Os 19 to 21 from his house. Later, accused Nos. 1 to 3 were brought to the Police Station and sent for remand. 11. On 21-01-2003, at 9.15 a.m. P.W. 4, CAS. District Hospital, Tenali, conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased No. 1 and opined that the cause of the death of deceased No.1 would appear to have shock and hemorrhage due to multiple injuries on the body and asphyxia due to manual strangulation. Ex. P-2 is the postmortem report pertaining to deceased No.1. 12. On 21-01-2003, at 9.30 a.m., P.W. 5, CAS. District Hospital, Tenali, conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased No.2 and opined that the cause of the death of deceased No. 2 would appear to have asphyxia due to strangulation and multiple injuries over the head. Ex. P-3 is the postmortem report pertaining to deceased No.2. 13. After completion of investigation, P. W. 14 filed the charge sheet against accused Nos. 1 to 4. 14. Originally, the police filed charge sheet against accused Nos. 1 to 4, alleging three charges. The first charge is that accused Nos. Ex. P-3 is the postmortem report pertaining to deceased No.2. 13. After completion of investigation, P. W. 14 filed the charge sheet against accused Nos. 1 to 4. 14. Originally, the police filed charge sheet against accused Nos. 1 to 4, alleging three charges. The first charge is that accused Nos. 1 to 4, on 19-01-2003, in the evening, at Guntur, conspired together to commit an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life to wit., to do away with Lankapothula Srinivasa Reddy, s/o. Chinaramireddy of Mamillapalli village and in pursuance of the said agreement, accused Nos. 1 to 4, did commit the offence of murder of said Lankapothula Srinivasa Reddy, s/o. Chinaramireddy and Alia Venkata Ramana Reddy, s/o. Gurava Reddy, punishable with death or imprisonment for life (under Section 302 IPC) and that accused Nos. 1 to 4, thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 120-B(1) IPC. The second charge is that on the same day, at about 9.30 p.m., at Modukur-Mamillapalli Cross road, accused Nos. 1 to 3 along with accused No.4, waylaid there with an auto, bearing registration No. AP 7V 4750, did commit murder by intentionally causing the death of Lankapothula Srinivasa Reddy (Deceased No.1) and Alia Venkata Ramana Reddy (Deceased No.2) while they were proceeding on T.V.S. Suzuki Motor Cycle from Modukur village; accused No. 3 beat Srinivasa Reddy on hi chest with iron pipe as a result of which both of them fell down on the ground from the said Motor Cycle; and accused No. 1 axed Srinivasa Reddy and Venkata Ramana Reddy on their heads; accused No.2 stabbed them with knife on their faces, while accused No.3 beat them with iron pipe indiscriminately; and Srinivasa Reddy receive as many as 17 injuries and died on the spot, instantaneously; and Venkata Ramana Reddy received as many as 13 injuries and died on the spot instantaneously; and that accused Nos. 1 to 3 thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The third charge is that accused Nos. 1 to 3 thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The third charge is that accused Nos. 1 to 4, on the same day, time and place, and during the course of same transaction as mentioned into charge No.2, knowing or having reason to a believe that certain offence, punishable with death or imprisonment for life, has been committed, did cause certain evidence of the said offence to disappear to wit, after murdering Lakapothula Srinivasa Reddy, s/o. Chinarami Reddy and Alia Venkata Ramana Reddy, s/o Gurava Reddy of Mamillapalli village, accused Nos. 1 to 4 brought both the dead bodies of the deceased to Kommamuru canal and thrown them into the canal, with the intention of screening the said offence and to escape from legal punishment and that accused Nos. 1 to 4 thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 201 IPC and the charges were read over and explained to the accused. 15. All the accused pleaded not guilty of the offences and claimed to be tried. 16. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 14 and got marked Exs. P-1 to P-13 and also M.Os. 1 to 24, material objects. On behalf of the defence, none were examined and no documents were marked. 17. The Court below, basing on the circumstantial evidence and the evidence of other witnesses, acquitted accused Nos. 2 and 3 from all the charges leveled against them. But, however, found accused No. 1 guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 2011PC and accused No.4 guilty of the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC, and accordingly, convicted and sentenced them. However, the Court below acquitted accused NO.1 in respect of charge under Section 120-B IPC and acquitted accused NO.4 in respect of charges under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC Challenging the said conviction and sentence, accused Nos. 1 and 4 have preferred the present appeals. 18. However, the Court below acquitted accused NO.1 in respect of charge under Section 120-B IPC and acquitted accused NO.4 in respect of charges under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC Challenging the said conviction and sentence, accused Nos. 1 and 4 have preferred the present appeals. 18. Smt. A. Gayathri Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant-accused No. 1 contended that the Court below disbelieved the evidence of P.W. 3, who was projected as an eye-witness and, therefore, there are no eye-witness to the incident and the entire case rests on the circumstantial evidence and these circumstances cannot be believed and even if it is believed, at best, it gives rise to suspicion to show that the accused might have committed the offence and that having acquitted accused Nos. 2 and 3 on the ground of benefit of doubt, the Court below ought to have extended the same benefit of doubt to accused Nos. 1 and 4 also, that there was a delay of 12-00 hours in sending report to the police and that the earliest report said to have been submitted by P.W. 1 at 5.00 a.m., on 20-01-2003 was suppressed by the prosecution, that P.Ws. 9 and 10 are chance witnesses, that the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 is highly improbable in view of the fact that only a part of their statement has been disbelieved and that the entire evidence should have been disbelieved by the Court below itself and hence, she prays to set aside the conviction and sentence of accused No.1. 19. Learned counsel for the appellant accused No.4 also argued on similar lines and sought to set aside the conviction and sentence of accused No.4. 20. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor contended that there are strong circumstances, which would go to show that the offence was committed by accused No.1 and 2 others and that accused No.4 was caught red-handed by P.Ws. 20. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor contended that there are strong circumstances, which would go to show that the offence was committed by accused No.1 and 2 others and that accused No.4 was caught red-handed by P.Ws. 1 and 2 and he was taken to the Police Station and thereafter, as pointed out by accused No.4, the dead body of both the deceased were traced, that the confessional statement of accused No.4 would go to show that it is accused No.1 and 2 and none others have committed the offence of murder and that the Court below found clear motive for accused No.1 to commit the murder of the deceased persons, in view of the fact that he allegedly outraged the modesty of the wife of deceased No. 1 – Lankapathula Srinivasa Reddy and hence he prays to dismiss the appeals. 21. The Court disbelieved the evidence of P. W. 3, who was projected as an eye-witness. He is a resident of Mamillapalli village. He knows accused Nos. 1 to 3, because they are also the residents of Mamillapalli village. But, he did not inform about the incident to anybody till he was examined by the police. Even according to P.W. 14, the Investigating Officer, P.W. 3was examinedon21-01-2003.lf really this witness was examined on 21-01-2003, the names of accused Nos. 2 and 3 would have been mentioned in the investigation report or, at any rate, P.W. 14 could have filed a Memo into the Court showing them as accused Nos. 2 and 3. But, till they were apprehended by the police on 01-02-2003, their names were neither figured as accused anywhere in the record of the investigation conducted by P. W. 14, nor in the statements of witnesses. 22. The conduct of this witness i.e., P.W. 3 was very much doubted by the Court below in view of the fact that instead of going to the village and inform about the incident to the elders or relatives or friends of the deceased, he went to the Railway Station and slept there during the night and even then he did not inform to anybody. Therefore, in our view, the court below had rightly disbelieved the evidence of P.W. 3 and the reasoning given by the Court below is found to be acceptable in discarding his evidence. Therefore, in our view, the court below had rightly disbelieved the evidence of P.W. 3 and the reasoning given by the Court below is found to be acceptable in discarding his evidence. If the evidence of P.W. 3 is eschewed from consideration, there is no direct evidence and the entire case would depend upon the circumstantial evidence. When the entire case rests upon the circumstantial evidence, the law is well settled that all the circumstances should cogently and firmly be established and the cumulative effect of all the circumstances should unerringly be pointed out towards the guilt of the accused only and none others. 23. The motive for the offence is that accused No.1 alleged to have outraged the modesty of the wife of deceased No.1 and in that regard a case was registered. As a matter of fact, when the case is posted to 20-01-2003, both the deceased persons went to T. Sundur Police Station on 19-01-2003 at 6.00 p.m. But, there is no evidence to show that both the deceased persons came to T. Sundur Police Station after 6.00 p.m., on 19-01-2003. Except the oral testimony of P.Ws. 1 and 2 to the effect that accused NO.1 outraged the modesty of the wife of deceased NO.1 and the said case was posted to 20-01-2003 forgiving evidence of witnesses and that the alleged offence has taken place during night time, the prosecution has not adduced any documentary evidence to show that the case was coming up for trial on 20-01-2003 and in that connection both the deceased persons came to the Police Station on the evening of 19-01-2003. 24. The motive is not an integral part of the crime and it is only a mode of assessment of criminality. If really accused No. 1 is to entertain grouse against any person, it must be against the wife of deceased No.1, but not against deceased Nos. 1 and 2. Moreover, deceased NO.2 is no way concerned with the case. Therefore, a weak attempt has been made by the prosecution to show that as accused No. 1 outraged the modesty of the wife of deceased NO.1 and in that connection a crime was registered against accused No.1, for which accused NO.1 entertained grouse against them. 25. According to the prosecution, the scene of offence is located at a distance of 1 km. from Mamillapalli village in between Modukur Mamillapalli village. 26. 25. According to the prosecution, the scene of offence is located at a distance of 1 km. from Mamillapalli village in between Modukur Mamillapalli village. 26. P.W. 14, the investigating officer, recorded the scene of offence panchanama under Ex. P-6, in the presence of P.W 11 and others. The police seized M.O. 14 - Blue colour slippers, M.O. 6 - T.V.S. Motor Cycle, M.O. 7 - Auto, M.O. 23 - two pairs of black colour leather chappals, M.O. 15 - slippers, and M.O. 24-white coloured shirt button. The police also seized M.O. 17 - blood stained earth, and M.O. 18 - control earth. When the blood stains objects were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, it does not contain any blood group matching to the blood group of the deceased. 27. P. Ws. 11 and 13 are the mediators, who were present at the time when P.W.14 held inquest over the dead body of the deceased under Ex. P-4 in respect of deceased NO.1 and Ex. P-5 in respect of deceased No.2. The inquest mediations opine that both the deceased died as a result of the injuries sustained by them. After that, the dead bodies of the deceased were sent to post-mortem examination. 28. P.W. 4, the Doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased No.1, found the following injuries: "1. An oblique lacerated injury on the left side of frontal region measuring 2 x 1 cm x bone deep. 2. An oblique lacerated injury of 6 x 1 cm x bone deep over right parietal region. 3. Lacerated injury of 5 x 1 cm x bone deep over left parietal region. 4. A lacerated injury of 2 x 1 cm bone deep over left mastoid area. 5. Lacerated injury 1 x 14 cm x muscle deep over left cheek. 6. Lacerted injury of 2 x 1/2 cm x muscle deep below middle of left mandibular region. 7. Lacerated injury of 3 x 112 cm x bone deep over right mandibular region. 8. Circular deep abrasion of 1 cm in diameter below the chin. 9. Bleeding from both nostrils present. 10. An abrasion of 8 x 3 cm over lateral aspect of left fore arm. 11. Two abrasions each measuring 3 x 1 cm over posterior aspect of upper 1/3rd of left fore arm. 12. 8. Circular deep abrasion of 1 cm in diameter below the chin. 9. Bleeding from both nostrils present. 10. An abrasion of 8 x 3 cm over lateral aspect of left fore arm. 11. Two abrasions each measuring 3 x 1 cm over posterior aspect of upper 1/3rd of left fore arm. 12. Three abrasions of size (1) 3 cm x 1 cm over right scapular region. (2) 2 cm x 1 cm over inter scapular region. (3) 1 x Y2 cm over left scapular region. 13. An abrasion of 2 x 4 cm over dorsum of right wrist. 14. An abrasion of 1 x 3 cm over posterior aspect of right fore arm 5 cm above to injury No. 13. 15. Fracture of mandible on left side at two places, one near midline and another near ankle. 16. Two nail abrasions semi circular I shape 1 cm in circumference on either side of upper part of neck. 17. Sickish discolouration of 8 x 3 cm over anterior aspect of neck." He issued Ex. P-2, post-mortem report, opining that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries n the body and asphyxia due to manual strangulation, 36-00 hours priorto post-mortem examination. Except giving a suggestion that he mentioned the time of death of deceased No.1 in the postmortem examination report to suit the prosecution case, nothing has been elicited to discredit the testimony of this witness. 29. P .W. 5 is another Doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased No. 2 - Alia Venkata Ramana Reddy and found the following injuries: "1. A lacerated injury of 3 x 2 cm x bone deep over the right parietal area. 2. A lacerated injury of 4 x 1 cm x bone deep just behind the injury No.1 in right parietal area. 3. A lacerated injury of 6 x 2 cm bone deep over the occipital area. 4. A lacerated injury of 5 x 1 cm x bone deep present just above injury No.3 in the occipital area. 5. An irregular lacerated injury of 5 x 1 x 1 cm in the helix of right ear. 6. A lacerated injury of 3x % x % cm just behind right ear. 7. 4. A lacerated injury of 5 x 1 cm x bone deep present just above injury No.3 in the occipital area. 5. An irregular lacerated injury of 5 x 1 x 1 cm in the helix of right ear. 6. A lacerated injury of 3x % x % cm just behind right ear. 7. Irregular lacerated injury of 5x3x3cm in the middle of lower lip, lower central two incisor teeth broken and deeply impacted into the lower jaw. 8. Partial loss of tooth of right upper central incisor. 9. Blackish discolouration of entire front of neck extending from just below the angle of left mandible to just below angle of right mandible of size about 35 x 6 cm. 10. Abrasion about 4 x 3 cm size in the posterior aspect of right elbow joint. 11. Abrasion about 5 x 3 cm in the left6 elbow joint, posterior aspect. 12. Abrasion of 3 x 2 cm in the right wrist joint posterior aspect. 13. Bleeding from both nostrils and right ear present." He issued Ex. P-3, post-mortem report, opining that the deceased would appear to have died of asphyxia due to strangulation and multiple injuries over the head. The time of death approximately was 36-00 to 48-00 hours prior to postmortem examination. The same suggestion, as was made to P .W. 4, regarding the time of death was given to this witness also. 30. But, the evidence of these two witnesses, coupled with postmortem examination reports under Exs. P-2 and P-3, would go to show that the cause of death of both the deceased was homicidal. 31. Therefore, now, it is to be seen whether all the proved circumstances, even if they are taken into account cumulatively, those circumstances point out the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC against accused No. 1 and for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC against accused No.4. 32. Admittedly, the State has not preferred any appeal for the order of acquittal recorded by the Court below against accused Nos. 2 and 3 and the same has become final. 33. The dead bodies were found in Kommamuru water canal. There is evidence on record which would go to show that Kommamuru canal is situated at a distance of 15 kms from the place of occurrence. 2 and 3 and the same has become final. 33. The dead bodies were found in Kommamuru water canal. There is evidence on record which would go to show that Kommamuru canal is situated at a distance of 15 kms from the place of occurrence. The scene of occurrence is situated at a distance of 1 km from Mamillapalli village. Admittedly, P.Ws. 1 to 3, 9 and 10, and accused Nos. 1 to 3 belong to Mamillapalli village. 34. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 would go to show that when deceased No. 1 did not come to the village on the night of 19-01-2003, P.W. 2 went to the house of P.W. 1 and requested him to follow him to go to the P.S., T. Sundur. But, on the way, between Modukur Mamillapalli Cross road, they saw one auto and on seeing the auto, they stopped their scooter and saw accused Nos. 1 to 3 lifting the Suzuki motor cycle of deceased No.1 Srinivasa Reddy in the auto and another person i.e., accused No.4, was stand still in front of the auto. When they asked the accused the whereabouts of the deceased-Srinivasa Reddy and why they lifted the Suzuki motor cycle in the auto, the accused ran away, but, they caught hold of accused No.4. When P.W. 1 asked accused No.4 as to why the offence was occurred, he said to have confessed that he is a resident of Guntur, driving the auto and accused Nos. 1 to 3 took his auto on rent by saying that their friend's motor cycle was to be repaired and the same was to be carried to Guntur and that accused Nos. 1 to 3 beat the deceased persons viz., Srinivasa Reddy and Venkata Ramana Reddy, with knives, axes and iron rods and they dragged the dead bodies of the deceased to the fields near the Scene of offence and thereafter they took the dead bodies in his auto and thrown in Kommamuru canal, near Chebrole and thereafter they were putting the motor cycle of the deceased-Srinivasa Reddy in his auto. 35. A part of the statement of these two witnesses i.e., P.Ws. 1 and 2, has been disbelieved by the Court below in respect of the involvement of accused Nos. 2 and 3. Though they have clearly stated that accused Nos. 35. A part of the statement of these two witnesses i.e., P.Ws. 1 and 2, has been disbelieved by the Court below in respect of the involvement of accused Nos. 2 and 3. Though they have clearly stated that accused Nos. 2 and 3 were also present along with accused No.1, their evidence was disbelieved on the ground that they haven to stated in F.I.R., or during the course of investigation, revealing the names of accused Nos. 2 and 3. 36. We are conscious of the fact that the Court can discard a part of the statement and rely upon the other part, if it inspires confidence. The latin maxim "Falsus in uno, Falsus in omnibus", which means false in one thing, false in every thing, has no application to the Indian Rule of Law. 37. According to P.Ws. 1 and 2, they started on a scooter from the village at about 3.00 a.m. to go to T. Sundur Police Station and within 10 or 15 minutes thereafter they found accused Nos. 1 to 3. Thereafter, P.Ws. 1 and 2 submitted Ex. P-1, report, at about 5-00 a.m. When a specific suggestion was given to P .W. 1 that Ex. P-1, report, was a planted one, the same was denied. 38. P. W. 2 stated that he went to Kommamuru canal along with the police and P.W. 1 and found the dead bodies of the deceased with the injuries were floating in the water in the canal. The same, prima facie, appears to be false in view of the fact that Exs. P-6 and P-7, which are scene of offence panchanama and mediatornama, respectively, show that the deceased were found lying in the waterless cancel. 39. The same, prima facie, appears to be false in view of the fact that Exs. P-6 and P-7, which are scene of offence panchanama and mediatornama, respectively, show that the deceased were found lying in the waterless cancel. 39. Therefore, it the case of the prosecution is to be accepted, in the first instance, that the alleged incident has taken place near the fields of one E. Rami Reddy, which is at a distance of 1 km from Mamillapalli village and thereafter the dead bodies of the deceased were put into the auto and took them to Kommamuru canal, which is at a distance of 15 km and threw them into the canal and again the accused were said to have returned to the scene of offence in the same auto for the purpose of taking the motor cycle, in our considered view, having committed two murders, the assailants would not have returned to the scene of offence again, that too, to collect the vehicle of the deceased. It is rather a suicidal attempt, because the scene of offence is very close to the Mamillapalli village and accordingly it improbablise the version of the prosecution. We can understand that if the accused come to the scene of offence to take back their belongings or any other material belonging to them. But, that is not the case of the prosecution. 40. Another doubtful circumstance is that as per the evidence of P.W. 1, they went to the Police Station at 5.00 a.m. and lodged Ex. P-1, report. But, according to P.W. 12, Sub-Inspector of Police, he received Ex. P-1, report, at 9.00 a.m., on 20-01-2003. Ex. P-1, report, was not sent to the Court immediately and it took 12-00 hours to reach the Court. No explanation is forthcoming by the prosecution for this delay. So, basing on the evidence of P.W. 1, the learned counsel for the appellant succeed contended that Ex. P-1, report, was brought into existence after due deliberations suppressing the earlier report submitted by P.W.1 at 5-00 a.m. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants-accused appears to be correct, in view of the fact of the admission made by P.W. 1 that Ex. P-1, report, was prepared by him at 5-00 a.m. 41. P-1, report, was brought into existence after due deliberations suppressing the earlier report submitted by P.W.1 at 5-00 a.m. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants-accused appears to be correct, in view of the fact of the admission made by P.W. 1 that Ex. P-1, report, was prepared by him at 5-00 a.m. 41. Therefore, it is expected from the prosecution, that too, in a case of double murder, which is a serious offence, to give an explanation with regard to the delay in sending Ex. P-1 , report, and also the delay in lodging the complaint. No doubt, we are aware of the fact that mere delay in lodging the report and the consequential delay in sending the report to the Court concerned by itself is not a ground for acquitting the accused, but, at the same time, it is one of the circumstance that can be taken into consideration to test the veracity of the case of the prosecution and also to test the veracity of the evidence of witnesses. 42. Having seen accused Nos. 2 and 3, P.Ws. 1 and 2, though were examined on 20-01-2003, did not reveal their names and also the name of accused NO.4 to the police. No doubt, as seen from the F.I.R. accused No. 4 - auto driver, who was caught red-handed by P. Ws. 1 and 2, had shown the dead bodies of the deceased and P.W. 14, along with P.Ws. 11 and 13, reached the scene of offence at about 10.30 a.m. The place where the dead bodies of the deceased were found lying, as allegedly shown by accused No.4, is an open place. Therefore, the same cannot be said to be fact discovered within the meaning of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. If it is the place where the dead bodies were found lying, exclusively within the knowledge of accused No.4, then, we can understand that it would be an incriminating circumstance against accused NO.4. 43. The learned Public Prosecutor mainly relied upon the extra-judicial confession of accused NO.4 before P.Ws. 1 and 2. The law is well settled that the confessional statement of a co-accused cannot be the sole basis for convicting the other accused. Except the said fact, there is no other evidence that can be taken into consideration while evaluating the other evidence on record. 44. 1 and 2. The law is well settled that the confessional statement of a co-accused cannot be the sole basis for convicting the other accused. Except the said fact, there is no other evidence that can be taken into consideration while evaluating the other evidence on record. 44. Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act says that when more persons than one are being tried jointly for the same offence, and a confession made by one of such persons affecting himself and some other of such persons is proved, the Court may taken into consideration such confession as against such other person as well as against the person who makes such confession. 45. Even taking into consideration the extra-judicial confession said to have been made by accused NO.4 before P.Ws. 1 and 2, he makes the statement exculpating himself. When he makes that statement exculpating himself and inculpating accused Nos. 1 to 3, in such circumstances, the same cannot be taken into consideration along with other evidence. 46. The evidence of P.Ws. 6, 7 and 8 does not throw any light except to the effect that the dead bodies were found with injuries at Kommamuru canal. Therefore, their evidence did not incriminate anything against the accused. 47. The Court below relied upon the evidence of P. Ws. 9 and 10. According to the learned counsel for the appellants-accused, they are the chance witnesses. 48. P.W 9 is a resident of Mamillapalli village. According to him, on the date of incident i.e., on 19-01-2003, he came to Guntur on his personal work and went to second show cinema and after he had cinema and while returning on motor cycle, at about 12-00 or 12-30 a.m., mid night, on the way near Kommamuru canal road, he saw three persons, who were identified as accused Nos. 1 to 3, pushing the auto behind the auto to reach the point up at that place. Except stating that accused Nos. 1 to 3 were pushing the auto, he did not state anything. He did not inform about the same to anybody. He did not say that he saw the dead bodies near the place where accused Nos. 1 to 3 were pushing the auto. He did not even go to the place where the dead bodies were found lying. Therefore, the presence of accused Nos. He did not inform about the same to anybody. He did not say that he saw the dead bodies near the place where accused Nos. 1 to 3 were pushing the auto. He did not even go to the place where the dead bodies were found lying. Therefore, the presence of accused Nos. 1 to 3 on that night while they were pushing the auto at Kommamuru canal road, even if the evidence of P.W. 9 is accepted to be true and correct, cannot be said to be an incriminating circumstance against the accused. 49. Coming to the evidence of P.W. 10, he is also a resident of Mamillapalli village. According to him, on the date of incident, at about 1-00a.m., P.Ws. 1 and 2 requested him to search for the deceased as they went to the Police Station and did not return home till that time. On their request himself and one Sowri (not examined) were searching for the deceased persons on their cycles and at about 4-00 a.m., while returning, they saw accused Nos. 1 to 3 in drunken condition in between Tottempudi and Mamillapalli, village and on seeing them, accused Nos. 1 to 3 tried to escape. 50. Admittedly, P.W. 10 is the person, who used to work with P.W. 1. He saw accused Nos. 1 to 3 going in a hurry mood, at about 4-00 a.m., in between Tottempudi and Mamillapalli village. His evidence does not indicate that he saw the accused near the scene of offence or near the place where the dead bodies were found lying. According to him, he was examined by the police on 20-01-2003. 51. According to P.W. 14, P.W. 10was examined on 21-01-2003. If really he was examined on that day, certainly the names of accused Nos. 1 to 3 would have been revealed by him. Even assuming, for a moment, that this witness saw accused Nos. 1 to 3 in between Tottemudi and Mamillapalli village, that cannot be an incriminating circumstance against the accused. 52. The accused were arrested on 01-02-2003 by P. W. 14, investigating officer, in the presence of P. Ws. 11 and 13. The accused said to have given confessional statements, one by one, as in admissible portion, and in pursuance of their confessional statements, M.Os. 19,20 and 21, which are iron gottam, axe and iron knife, respectively, were seized under Exs. The accused were arrested on 01-02-2003 by P. W. 14, investigating officer, in the presence of P. Ws. 11 and 13. The accused said to have given confessional statements, one by one, as in admissible portion, and in pursuance of their confessional statements, M.Os. 19,20 and 21, which are iron gottam, axe and iron knife, respectively, were seized under Exs. P-7, P-8 and P-9, respectively. When they were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, after analysis, Ex. P-13, analysis report, was given and, as per which, none of the weapons contains the same group of blood of the deceased persons. Even it is not established that the blood group of the deceased is 'B'. The rubber mat, which was seized in the auto, only contain 'B' group of blood. None of the clothes of the deceased or any incriminating material, seized at the scene of offence, including the blood stained chap pal etc., contains any particular group of blood. Therefore, even if the recovery of M.Os. 19,20 and 21 is accepted to be true, it cannot be said to be an incriminating fact that they were the weapons used in committing the murder of the deceased persons. 53. Further, even if the entire evidence of the prosecution is to be believed, some suspicious circumstances were shown against the accused because of their presence during the night time. However, those suspicious circumstances cannot be taken as a ground to convict them and having rejected the testimony of the evidence of these witnesses with regard to the involvement of accused Nos. 2 ~nd 3 in the commission of offence, the Court below ought to have extended the same benefit of doubt to accused Nos. 1 and 4 also. 54. Therefore, we are of the view that the cumulative effect evidence adduced by the prosecution is not sufficient to hold that accused No.1 committed the murder of the deceased persons, and accused No.4, knowing full well that the offence of murder was committed, tried to escape from the scene of offence. 55. IT is the case of the prosecution that all the three accused beat the deceased persons. If the truth, from the evidence of prosecution witnesses 1, 2, 9 and 10, can be separated from the falsehood, then, certainly, they can be relied upon. But, truth and falsehood are inextricably mixed up. 55. IT is the case of the prosecution that all the three accused beat the deceased persons. If the truth, from the evidence of prosecution witnesses 1, 2, 9 and 10, can be separated from the falsehood, then, certainly, they can be relied upon. But, truth and falsehood are inextricably mixed up. It is not known who caused vital injuries to both the deceased persons. Having given the benefit of doubt to accused Nos. 2 and 3, the same should have been extended to accused NO.1 also. 56. It is to be further seen that, in the present case, the prosecution had mainly relied upon the ocular evidence of P.W. 3 and the other circumstantial evidence, particularly, P.Ws.1 2,9,10 and 14. 57. The entire case of the prosecution, from a reading of the facts and circumstances coupled with the charge sheet, had been initially based upon the evidence of eye witness i.e., P.W. 3. In such an event, in normal course, if the prosecution wants to establish the evidence of the eye witness, the testimony of the sole eye witness has to be tested by the other circumstances and the evidence on record. Therefore, for all purposes, the primary basis for the prosecution to rest its case is the evidence of P.Ws. 3, who is the eye-witness and the rest are only supporting circumstances to the evidence of P.W. 3. 58. It is further born out from the record that the evidence of P.W. 3 had already been discarded by the Court below itself, for all purposes. Therefore, the evidentiary value of the evidence of P.W. 3 had fell into insignificance for the purpose of recoding any finding against the accused. Such being the case, what remains on record is the other circumstances and the evidence of the other witnesses i.e., P.Ws. 1, 2, 9,10 and 14, in order to connect accused Nos. 1 and 4 with the offences with which they were charged. In other words, the evidence of the eye-witness has totally been eliminated by the Court below itself and the other circumstances have remained on record. Hence, the case has now turned its colour from an admixture of the evidence of eye-witness and the other circumstantial witnesses, and turned into purely that of a case of circumstantial evidence. 59. In other words, the evidence of the eye-witness has totally been eliminated by the Court below itself and the other circumstances have remained on record. Hence, the case has now turned its colour from an admixture of the evidence of eye-witness and the other circumstantial witnesses, and turned into purely that of a case of circumstantial evidence. 59. When the very foundation of the case of the prosecution, which laid on the eye witness i.e., P.W. 3, has been demolished, in our considered view, the other circumstantial evidence on record, no doubt, can be taken into consideration with abundant care. In other words, the circumstantial evidence, in such a case, should be subjected to further rigorous scrutiny. 60. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that the reasons assigned by the Court below in support of the case of the prosecution, insofar as the appellants-accused Nos. 1 and 4, are not sufficient to connect them with the offense with which they were charged. 61. We draw inspiration, in this regard, from the observation made by the Apex Court in Orsu Venkat Rao v. State of A.P.1 wherein their Lordships were pleased to observe that "once evidence of the eye-witness is discarded as unworthy of credence, it is difficult to sustain the conviction of the accused, even though circumstances raise strong suspicion against him - Hence accused-appellant entitled to benefit of doubt. 62. The above said observations, in our considered view, are unexceptional and when the facts and circumstances of the present case are to put to test independently, from various angles, we are of the view that it is unsafe to connect the accused with the offence. 63. For the foregoing, the appellants accused Nos. 1 and 4 are found not guilty of the offences charged against them and they are entitled for acquittal of the said charges. 64. In the result, the both the Criminal Appeals are allowed, setting aside the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 06-05-2005, in Sessions Case No. 508 of 2003, passed by the XI Additional District and Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Guntur at Tenali, against appellants accused Nos. 1 and 4, thereby acquitting them for the charges leveled against them and the amount of fine, if any, paid shall be refunded to them. 65. The appellant-accused NO.1 shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 66. 1 and 4, thereby acquitting them for the charges leveled against them and the amount of fine, if any, paid shall be refunded to them. 65. The appellant-accused NO.1 shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 66. The bail bonds of appellant-accused No.4 shall stand cancelled.