JUDGMENT :- This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 28th August 2003 passed in S.c. No.96S of 2002 on the file of ill Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ranga Reddy District, whereby and whereunder the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge found Al-M Venkat Raju, A2-Adepu Mahesh Kumar, A3-Adepu Satyanarayana, A4-Mulka Gangaram and AS-Silver Sreenu guilty for the offences under Sections 148, 307 read with 149 IPC and further found Al guilty for the offence under Section 304 Part I IPC, A2 to AS under Section 304 Part I read with 149 IPC and convicted them accordingly and sentenced A 1 to AS to suffer RI for 3 years and pay a fine of Rs.500/-; in default to suffer SI for 6 months each for the offence under Section 148 IPC; Al to suffer RI for 10 years and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-; in default to suffer SI for one year and for the offence under Section 304 Part I IPC, A2 to AS to suffer RI for 10 years and pay a fine of Rs.l ,000/- each; in default SI for one year for the offence under Section 304 Part I read with 149 IPC and Al to AS to suffer RI for 10 years and pay a fine of Rs.1,OOO/- each; in default to suffer SI for one year for the offence under Section 307 IPC. All the substantive sentences have been directed to run concurrently. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found A6-M Lalitha not guilty for all the offences and acquitted her accordingly. 2. The prosecution case, as disclosed by P.W.2, in brief is : A6-M Lalitha is wife of A I-M Venkat Raju. A2 and A3 are brother and father respectively of A6. A4 is junior paternal uncle of A 1. AS is maternal uncle of A6. A1 and A6 resided in a house which is behind the house of P.W.2-Dinesh Goud who is a Police Constable in Shainathgunj Police Station. Shyam Rao Goudwas a friend of P.W.2. P.W.2 developed intimacy with A6. On 24.4.2001 A6 telephoned P.W.ll-Mukesh Sarda whose shop is located opposite to Shainathgunj Police Station and asked him to call P.W.2. Since P.W.2 was not available in the police station, P.W.11 asked A6 to inform him the message, if any, could be conveyed to P.W.2. Shyam Rao Goudwas a friend of P.W.2. P.W.2 developed intimacy with A6. On 24.4.2001 A6 telephoned P.W.ll-Mukesh Sarda whose shop is located opposite to Shainathgunj Police Station and asked him to call P.W.2. Since P.W.2 was not available in the police station, P.W.11 asked A6 to inform him the message, if any, could be conveyed to P.W.2. A6 asked P.W.11 to inform P.W.2 to go over to the house of Shyam Rao Goud. P.W.11 conveyed the message to P.W.2 on the same day at 6 p.m. It is alleged that A6 went to the house of Shyam Rao Goud and waited for the arrival of P.W.2. P.W.9-Gyara/a Parijata on coming to know of the intimacy of A6 with P.W.2, showed her reluctance for stay of A6 at her house and therefore asked A6 to go away. Thereupon, A6 wrote a letter and gave it to P.W.9 for being passed on to P.W.2. Shyam Rao Goud returned home and learnt from P.W.9 that A6 came and handed over the letter for being passed on to P.W.2. P.W.2 came to the house of Shyam Rao Goud and thereupon P.W.9 handed over the letter given by A6. P.W.9 abused P.W.2 for making people like A6 to come to her house. P.W.2, after receipt of the letter came out of the house of Shyam Rao Goud. P.W.2 and Shyam Rao Goud went to the house of A3, who is father of A6, to question her for demanding Rs.3.00 lakhs through the letter. Finding difficulty in locating the house of A3, they were about to return from the locality where the house of A3 situates. Then the younger brother of A6 sited P.W.2 and Shyam Rao Goud and enquired them and learnt that they were searching for the house of his father. He lead P.W.2 and Shyam Rao Goud to the house of A3 who is his father. A3 extended all Courtesies such as giving water, and asked them the purpose of their visit to his house. P.W.2 and Shyam Rao Goud informed him that A6 demanded Rs.3.00 lakhs and they showed the letter to A3 and thereupon A3 asked them to wait till the arrival of AI, who is the husband of A6. In the meanwhile Al came and took them inside the house. Again they were extended all Courtesies such as giving drinking water. P.W.2 and Shyam Rao Goud informed him that A6 demanded Rs.3.00 lakhs and they showed the letter to A3 and thereupon A3 asked them to wait till the arrival of AI, who is the husband of A6. In the meanwhile Al came and took them inside the house. Again they were extended all Courtesies such as giving drinking water. He enquired them the purpose of their visit to the house. P.W.2 told Al that A6 gave a letter demanding him to pay money and showed the letter to him. A 1 advised P.W.2 to give money as demanded by A6 otherwise he will get him suspended by giving a letter to the Commissioner of Police. In the meanwhile, A4 came and instigated the other accused to beat P.W.2 and Shyam Rao Goud. Al and A2 beat P.W.2 with iron rod and stick on his head. When Shyam Rao Goud came to his rescue, Al beat him with iron rod. Because of the beatings, P.W.2 and Shyam Rao Goud fell on ground and Shyam Rao Goud lost consciousness. While P.W.2 was crying for water, all the accused went out of the house by locking the door from outside. An hour thereafter four Constables of Neredmet Police Station shifted P.W.2 and Shyam Rao Goud in an auto to Neredpet Police Station. P.W.2 presented EX.P.2 report with Station House Officer, Neredmet Police Station. 3. P.W.13-K Srinath Reddy received EX.P.2 report, registered a case in Crime No.91 of 2001 under Sections 324 read with 34 IPC and issued EX.PA FIR. He sent P.W.2 and Shyam Rao Goud to Gandhi Hospital for treatment. CW.l Dr. Bharath Bhushan, C.M.O., Gandhi Hospital medically examined Shyam Rao Goud on 1.5.2001 and found the following injuries on his person: (i) Multiple contusions over scalp and forehead. (ii) Abrasions over the right side of frontal region. (iii) A depression over the occipital parietal junction. (iv) Abrasion over scalp. EX.C1 is the original copy of the accident 1\ register with MLC No.7636. He also a medically examined P.W.2 on the same 0 day and found the following injuries on his f person: (i) Swelling deformity over the lower 1/3 of right leg. (ii) Abrasion of 2 x 1 cm on darsal aspect C of left forearm. a r 1 (iii) Contusion over lower 1/3 of right thigh on anterior aspect. He also a medically examined P.W.2 on the same 0 day and found the following injuries on his f person: (i) Swelling deformity over the lower 1/3 of right leg. (ii) Abrasion of 2 x 1 cm on darsal aspect C of left forearm. a r 1 (iii) Contusion over lower 1/3 of right thigh on anterior aspect. (iv) Laceration of 4 x 1 x 5 cm, 3 x 1 x 1 cm and 1 x 5 x 5 cm over the left , parietal region. EX.C2 is the original accident register with MLC No.7636. P.W.2 and Shyam Raa Gaud were shifted to Apollo Hospitals, Hyderguda, Hyderabad. P.W.12 Dr. R. Jagan Mohan Rao medically examined P.W.2 and issued EX.P.12 wound certificate. EX.P.13 is the certified Xerox copy of the Case Sheet in respect of P.W.2. Shyam Raa Gaud succumbed to the injuries on 2.5.2001 while undergoing treatment in Apollo Hospitals, Hyderguda, Hyderabad. P.W.13 K. Srinath Reddy, S.l. of Neredmet Police Station, received death intimation and altered section of law and submitted Ex.P .17 memo of alteration of section of law to the Additional JFCM (N&E), R.R. District. P.W.14 K. Kistaiah, CI of Police, Malkajgiri, took up investigation, inspected the scene in the presence of P.Ws.l, 2, 3, 4 and 9 and recorded their statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C at Apollo Hospitals, Hyderguda, Hyderabad. He held inquest over the dead body of Shyam Raa Gaud (hereinafter referred to as deceased) on 2.5.2001 between 4 p.m. and 6 p.m. in the presence of P.W.8 K. Shanker and another. Ex.P 11 is the inquest report. After the inquest, the dead body was sent for postmortem examination. P.W.6 Dr. Taquiddin Khan, Assistant Professor in Forensic Medicine, Gandhi Medical College, conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased on 3.5.2001 at about 10 a.m. He issued Ex.P.10 post-mortem report opining that the deceased died due to head injury. P.W.14 arrested A2 to AS on 11.5.2001 at 5 a.m. and recovered MOs.1 to 4 in pursuance of their disclosure statement under the cover of EX.P.9 seizure report. He also arrested Al on 14.10.2001 and recovered MO.5 iron rod in pursuance of disclosure his statement under the cover of Ex.P.20, admissible portion in the confessional panchanama. He also sent material objects to FSL. Ex.P.21 is the FSL report. After completing investigation, a charge-sheet came to be submitted before the I JFCM (E&N), R.R. District. He also arrested Al on 14.10.2001 and recovered MO.5 iron rod in pursuance of disclosure his statement under the cover of Ex.P.20, admissible portion in the confessional panchanama. He also sent material objects to FSL. Ex.P.21 is the FSL report. After completing investigation, a charge-sheet came to be submitted before the I JFCM (E&N), R.R. District. The learned Magistrate took the charge-sheet on file as P.R.C.No.38 of 2002 and committed the case to the Sessions Division, R.R. District. The learned Sessions Judge took the case on file as S.C. No.965 of 2002 and made over the same to ill Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTC, R.R. District. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, on hearing the prosecution and the accused framed the following charges: Charge No.1: Against Al to A6 for the offence punishable under Section 148 of IPC; Charge No.2: Against Al to A6 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 149 IPC; Charge No.3: Against Al to A6 for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with 149 IPC. The learned Additional Sessions Judge read over and explained the charges to the accused, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences with which they stood charged, prosecution examined 14 witnesses and proved 21 documents and exhibited 7 material objects. Dr. M Bharath Bhushan, who initially treated the deceased and P.W.2 in Gandhi Hospital, has been examined as CW.1. Entries in the accident register relatable to the deceased and P.W.2 have been marked as C 1 and C2. 4. The plea of the accused is that no incident took place in the house of A3 on 1.5.2001. They examined Gujaratam Manemma, who is a neighbour to A3, as DW.1 and marked 5 documents as Exs.D1 to D5 on their behalf. 5. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, on appreciation of the evidence brought on record and on hearing the prosecution and the accused, found Al guilty for the offence under Section 304 Part I IPC and whereas A2 to AS for the offence under Section 304 Part I read with 149 IPC and further found Al to AS guilty for the offence under Section 307 read with 149 IPC and 148 IPC and convicted them accordingly and sentenced them as stated supra, by judgment dated 28.8.2003. 6. 6. Al to AS have filed this appeal assailing their conviction and sentence for the offences under Sections 304 Part I, 304 Part I read with 149, 307 read with 149 and 148 IPC. 7. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the appellants! A 1 to AS and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State. 8. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the evidence of P.W.2, who is a sole eye-witness to the occurrence, before the Court substantially varies with his statement made before the police as well as the report presented by him, which formed the basis for registering a case in Crime No.91 of 2001 and thus no reliance can be placed on his testimony. He would also submit that there is no consistency with regard to the place of occurrence and number of assailants and therefore the version of P.W.2 as spoken by him before the Court becomes highly doubtful and in which case conviction recorded basing on such evidence is liable to be set aside. The learned Counsel took me to the report of P.W.2, which formed the basis for registering a case as well as the statement made by him before the police to convince that the evidence of P.W.2 before the Court substantially varies trom his earlier statements. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on the decisions of Supreme Court in Kalyan v. State of U.P., 2001 (2) ALD (Crl.) 719 (SC) = AIR 2001 SC 3976 , Ram Swaroop v. State of Rajasthan, (2004) 13 SCC 134 and Ram Narain Poply v. Central Bureau of Investigation, AIR 2003 SC 2748 . 9. In the Kalyan v. State of U.P.(supra), it has been held that major improvements made by an eye-witness in his deposition in the Court over his police statement makes his evidence doubtful. Para (19) of the cited judgment needs to be noted and it is thus: "19. 9. In the Kalyan v. State of U.P.(supra), it has been held that major improvements made by an eye-witness in his deposition in the Court over his police statement makes his evidence doubtful. Para (19) of the cited judgment needs to be noted and it is thus: "19. KEEPING in view the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the variance between the FIR' and the depositions made in the Court, the mention of gun shot injuries in the panchanama and their absence in the FIR, the conflict between the statements of eye-witnesses and the medical evidence and major contradictions and improvements in the depositions of the eye-witnesses, we are of the view that the prosecution failed to prove their case against the appellants beyond all shadows of doubt. The appellants are, therefore, held entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt. To form an opinion giving the appellants accused the benefit of doubt we have kept in mind the defence as projected and suggested by them to the witnesses during their cross-examination." 10. In the second cited decision, the Supreme Court observed that if the version given by the witness during the course of deposition was quite different from what he stated in FIR or during investigation, his evidence becomes wholly unreliable. 11. In the third cited decision, the Supreme Court observed that introduction or addition of a new story in a criminal prosecution, in most of the cases, it adversely affects or destroys the prosecution case. Para 175 of the cited judgment needs to be noted and it is thus: "175. 1 would also state that it is not properly understood by the prosecuting agency that by introducing or adding a new story in a criminal prosecution, in most of the cases, it adversely affects or destroys the prosecution case. Not only it creates doubts with regard to that part of the prosecution version but on occasions casts doubt about the motive. Result is under our criminal jurisprudence, benefit of doubt may go to the accused." 12. Not only it creates doubts with regard to that part of the prosecution version but on occasions casts doubt about the motive. Result is under our criminal jurisprudence, benefit of doubt may go to the accused." 12. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor contends that P.W.2 is an injured witness and his testimony is supported by the medical evidence and therefore the trial Court is justified in placing implicit reliance on his testimony to record the conviction of the appellants for the offences under Sections 304 Part I, 304 Part I read with 149, 307 read with 149 and 148 IPC and the same is not liable to be interfered in this appeal. He would also contend that the report allegedly presented by A6 indicates the place of the incident as the house of A3 and therefore there is no inconsistency with regard to the place of incident. He refers to EX.D4 certified copy of FIR in Cr.No.l26 of 2001. Much emphasis has been laid by him on the relevant portion of the report which reads as under : "As promised to me, my well wishers, invited my husband and his uncle. On 1.5.2001, as promised Sri Gangaram brought my husband Sri Venkataraju. In the evening, in the open space behind our house, they resolved the dispute and husband's uncle made me and my children to fall on the feet of my husband. Then only my husband participated in the dinner. Then some people tapped the door. My grandmother opened the door to find out who they were. They directly came into the house and said that they came for Lalitha and they saw me and tried to drag me from the kitchen. Then I raised a cry that they are the persons who are playing with my life. My mother and neighbours the uncle and aunt's of the neighbours houses asked me what the matter was. Even then, Dinesh Goud and Shyam Rao are forcing me to tell in the presence of others that I am going to divorce my husband. My husband said that I said has became true and hurriedly went away. They asked those two persons why they have came there, they said in an intoxicating state that they came to take away Lalitha and tried to drag me out. My husband said that I said has became true and hurriedly went away. They asked those two persons why they have came there, they said in an intoxicating state that they came to take away Lalitha and tried to drag me out. Then my father's friends and uncles and aunts caught them and beat them My father, my uncle and others said that it is not proper to beat them and let us report to the police and bring them went to give report. When Dinesh Goud caught hold of my hand, my well wishers tried to rescue me. Syamrao Goud kicked me on my stomach. As I was pregnant, I fell down gasping. After a few hours, police came and found out what had happened. My father asked them to take the injured to hospital and the injured were taken to hospital. When the police came and asked me, I told them all the above details. Srimati Tantia Kumari who was one of my father's friends circle and our well wisher came and I told her the same details and sent a report to the police station. By that time, my husband and Gangaram left the place even before that time. They did not participate in this galata. My brother, my uncle and my father saying that when they wanted to keep up my family life, this incident had unexpectedly happened and they went to the police station to explain the incident. The police apprehended my father, my brother and my uncle. The police did not take any action on the (sic complaint) given by me to the police on 1.5.2001." 13. P.W.1 is elder brother of deceased. He did not support the prosecution and the prosecution declared him hostile and marked his Section 161 Cr.P.C statement as Ex.P.1. P.W.2 is the injured and he is an eye-witness to the occurrence. P.W.3 resides in the house opposite to the house of A3. The road intervenes between the house of A3 and P.W.3. He did not support the prosecution and the prosecution declared him hostile and marked his Section 161 Cr.P.C statement as EX.P.3. P.WA is elder brother of P.W.2. He categorically stated that P.W.2 did not inform him the names of the assailants. Therefore, the prosecution declared him hostile and marked his Section 161 Cr.P.C statement as EX.PA. He did not support the prosecution and the prosecution declared him hostile and marked his Section 161 Cr.P.C statement as EX.P.3. P.WA is elder brother of P.W.2. He categorically stated that P.W.2 did not inform him the names of the assailants. Therefore, the prosecution declared him hostile and marked his Section 161 Cr.P.C statement as EX.PA. P.W.5 is the panch witness for confession and recovery of MOs.l to 4 in pursuance of the disclosure statement of A2 to A5 under the cover of EX.P.9 panchanama. Admissible portions in the confessional statements of A2 to A5 have been exhibited as Exs.P.5 to P8. P.W.6 is a doctor who conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and issued EX.P.10 post-mortem report. P.W.7 is the panch witness for the scene of offence. He did not support the prosecution and the prosecution declared him hostile. P.W.8 is the panch witness for the inquest held on the dead body of the deceased. The inquest report has been marked through him as EX.P.11. P.W.9 is the wife of the deceased. P.W.10 is the panch witness for 1 the arrest of Al and seizure of MO.5 iron t rod in pursuance of his disclosure statement. He did not support the prosecution and the prosecution declared him hostile. P.W.11 owns an automobile shop under the name and style of Bhagavathi Automobiles near Shainathgunj Police Station. His shop was 1 opposite to Shainathgunj Police Station. He speaks of receiving telephone call from a woman and passing on the message received by him to P.W.2. P.W.12 is the doctor who treated P.W.2 in Apollo Hospitals, Hyderguda, Hyderabad. According to him, P.W.2 told him that a mob of 20 persons attacked him at Neredmet on 1.5.2001 at 8 p.m. and thereby he received injuries. Wound certificate of P.W.2 and certified copy of the case sheet have been marked through him as Exs.P.12 and P.B. P.Ws.13 and 14 are Investigation Officers. 14. The entire case rests on the solitary testimony of P.W.2. It is no doubt true that the conviction of an accused can be based solely on the testimony of a solitary witness. However, in such cases the Court must be satisfied that implicit reliance can be placed on the testimony of such a witness and that his testimony is free from blemish. It is no doubt true that the conviction of an accused can be based solely on the testimony of a solitary witness. However, in such cases the Court must be satisfied that implicit reliance can be placed on the testimony of such a witness and that his testimony is free from blemish. The testimony of the witness must be one which inspires confidence and leaves no doubt in the mind of the Court upon the truthfulness of the witness. 15. It is the defence of the accused that on the date of the occurrence P.W.2 and the deceased came to the house of A3 and tried to take away A6. Then the relatives and friends of A6 beat them and in the meanwhile father and uncles of A6 and others intervened and stopped giving further blows on P.W.2 and the deceased. 16. P.W.2 is the injured witness. The testimony of an injured witness has its own relevance and efficacy. The fact that the witness sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence lent support to their testimony that he was present during the occurrence. 17. It is the version of P.W.2 that he sustained injuries in the hands of the accused and the place of occurrence is in the house of A3. P.W.13, who received the report from P.W.2 and registered a case in Crime No.95 of 2001 and rushed to the scene, did not claim to have noticed any bloodstains at the scene of occurrence. According to P.W.l3, he found the deceased in the house of A3. This version does not suit the version of P.W.2. According to P.W.2, four Constables of Neredmet Police Station came to the house of A3, opened the doors and shifted him to the police station. There is no consistency in the version of the prosecution as to who shifted P.W.2 and the deceased from the scene to the police station. The two Investigating Officers, who have been examined as P.Ws.13 and 14, did not claim to have collected any bloodstains from the house of A3 to fix the scene of offence. P.W.l3 did not even claim to have spotted the bloodstains in the house of A3. P.W.2 and the deceased came to be examined by the Chief Medical Officer of Gandhi Hospital on 1.5.2001 at 10.15 p.m. CW.l is the Chief Medical Officer of Gandhi Hospital. P.W.l3 did not even claim to have spotted the bloodstains in the house of A3. P.W.2 and the deceased came to be examined by the Chief Medical Officer of Gandhi Hospital on 1.5.2001 at 10.15 p.m. CW.l is the Chief Medical Officer of Gandhi Hospital. Exs.C land C2 are relevant entries in the accident register in respect of the deceased and P.W.2. According to CW.l, P.W.2 told him that they were beaten by 20 known persons at Neredmet, J.J. Nagar. For better appreciation I may refer the relevant portion of the cross-examination of CW.1 and it is thus: ".. .. The injuries found on the person of Shyam Rao and Dinesh Goud can also be caused if they fall from a running motor cycle with a pillion rider. The injuries found by me in Exs.C1 and C2 suggestive of sustaining injuries by accident also. It is mentioned in Exs.C1 and C2 "alleged to have been beaten by 20 known persons at Neredmet, J.J. Nagar." At the time of admission P.W.2 was conscious. On information furnished by Dinesh Goud (P.W.2) I wrote on EX.C2 the words "alleged to have been beaten by 20 known persons with sticks at Neredmet, J.J. Nagar." I cannot give the names of the Duty Surgical Officer, Orthopaedic Surgical Officer and Radiologist, who gave treatment to Shyam Rao and Dinesh Goud. I have not seen the X ray reports of Shyam Rao and Dinesh Goud. So I cannot say anything without seeing the X rays." 18. The earliest version of P.W.2 as stated before the doctor who treated him in Gandhi Hospital is that the incident occurred at Neredmet, J.J. Nagar and the assailants were 20 in number. P.W.2 stated in the FIR that as soon as he and the deceased went to the house of A3 and while they were conversing with A6; AI, A2, A3, A4 and A5 suddenly came and attacked them with sticks and iron rods and thereby he and the deceased received bleeding injuries. He did not mention of receiving any letter from A6 and thereupon they went to the house of A3 to question A6 about her demand for money. While corning to his deposition before the Court, he comes with a totally different version of the incident. He did not mention of receiving any letter from A6 and thereupon they went to the house of A3 to question A6 about her demand for money. While corning to his deposition before the Court, he comes with a totally different version of the incident. He stated before the Court that he received a letter from A6 demanding him to pay Rs.3.00 lakhs and at least Rs.50,000/- urgently which made him and his friend to go to the house of A3, who is father of A6, to question her demand. He also testifies that when he and the deceased went to the house of A3, A3 asked them to sit and extended all Courtesies and thereupon he told A3 about receiving the letter from A6 demanding Rs.3.00 lakhs and indeed showed the letter written by A6. It is also his evidence before the Court that A I advised him to give money as demanded by A6. 19. The version of P.W.1 in the course of deposition is quite different from what he stated in EX.P.2 report. The trial Court discarded the improvements made by P.W.2 over EX.P.2 report and his police statement on the ground that they are trivial in nature. I cannot approve of the approach of the trial Court because the version disclosed in EX.P.2 report is quite different from the version disclosed by P.W.2 in his deposition before the Court and this discrepancy cannot be said to be merely clarificatory. Once the scene of offence itself becomes doubtful and the solitary testimony of P.W.2 comprises embellishments and improvements on vital aspects, the conviction basing on the solitary testimony of P.W.2 cannot be sustained. 20. In view of the above discussion, the conviction of the appellants/accused for the offences under Sections 304 Part I, 304 Part I read with 149, 307 read with 149 and 148 IPC is not legal and proper and the same is liable to be set aside. 21. In the result, this criminal appeal is allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence of the appellants/accused for the offences under Sections 304 Part I, 304 Part I read with 149, 307 read with 149 and 148 IPC. The bail bonds furnished by the appellants/accused shall stand cancelled. Fine amount, if any, paid by the appellants/ accused shall be refunded.