Oral Judgment: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) This appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is preferred by A-1, A-2, A-4 to A-6 against the judgment dt. 18-9- 2006 passed in SC ST SC No.32/2005 on the file of Special Judge for SC & ST (POA) Act-cum-VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kurnool. The appellants/A-1, A-2, A4 to A-6 along with A-3 who were tried for the offences punishable under Section 302 IPC, alternatively, under Sec. 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "the Act") and 148 IPC. The learned trial court convicted the appellants for the offence under Section 3 (2) (v) of the Act and Sec.148 IPC and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months each and further convicted them for the offence under Sc. 148 IPC and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months each by the impugned judgment. The substance of the charge against the accused is that on 6-3-2004 near the field of Balija Veerappa in between Obulapuram and Thadakanapalli villages, they committed murder of Rogenna, who belonged to a member of Scheduled Caste, (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") intentionally by beating and stabbing him with pattudu sticks and knife. The case of the prosecution in brief is that, A-1 committed rape on one Rani, who is the daughter of the junior paternal uncle of the deceased Rogenna, for which the deceased was eye witness. A case in crime in Cr.No.19/2002 under Section 376 IPC was registered against A-1. After committal, the case ie., SC No.1/2003 was coming up for trial on 4-3-2004. A-1 and his relatives mooted a compromise with the deceased, for which, the deceased put a condition that A-1 should marry the victim girl Rani by taking Rs.25,000/- as dowry. A-1 and his relatives did not accept the proposal of the deceased on the ground that Rani belonged to Scheduled Caste. Due to that they gave threat to the deceased. As there was no compromise in SC No.1/2003, the case was adjourned to 8-3-2004. A-1 and his relatives did not accept the proposal of the deceased on the ground that Rani belonged to Scheduled Caste. Due to that they gave threat to the deceased. As there was no compromise in SC No.1/2003, the case was adjourned to 8-3-2004. While so on 6-3-2004, the deceased and his brother Harijana Sagidipogu Yesanna @ Sanjanna (P.W.1) went to their field at about 5 PM to watch the ground nut crop. The land of Harijana Sagidipogu Ramudu (P.W.2), who is the son of the junior paternal uncle of the deceased, is also situated by the side of the land of P.W.1. After sitting for some time at their field, the deceased P.Ws.1 and 2 were proceeding to the village on their moped, which was driven by the deceased. At about 7 PM when they reached near the land of Balija Veeramma, A-1 to A-6 formed themselves into an unlawful assembly armed with sticks and knives stopped the moped. Immediately after stopping the vehicle, P.Ws.1 and 2 got down from the vehicle. A-1 and A-2 beat the deceased with sticks on the back of the head and caused him injuries. Then A-3 to A-6 attacked the deceased and beat him and stabbed him with sticks and daggers. All the accused threw the dead body of the deceased into a pit by the side of the road. After damaging the moped they threw it in the land of Veeramma and went away from that place. P.Ws.1 and 2 went near the deceased and found him dead. Due to fear, P.Ws.1 and 2 went back to their field where the father of deceased-P.W.3 was staying and informed him of the incident. On his advise, out of fear, they remained at the field till the next day morning. On the next day morning, P.Ws.1 to 3 came to the scene of offence and found the dead body. P.Ws.1 and 2 while keeping P.W.3 to watch the dead body went into the village and informed the incident to the wife of the deceased and her relatives. Thereupon, P.W.1 went to the police station and gave Ex.P-1 written complaint before the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police-P.W.11 on 7-3-2004 at 7 AM. P.Ws.1 and 2 while keeping P.W.3 to watch the dead body went into the village and informed the incident to the wife of the deceased and her relatives. Thereupon, P.W.1 went to the police station and gave Ex.P-1 written complaint before the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police-P.W.11 on 7-3-2004 at 7 AM. On which basis he registered a case in Cr.No.11/2004 under Sections 147, 148, 302 IPC r/w 149 IPC and Sec. 3(2)(v) of the Act and submitted First Information Report covered under Ex.P-15 to all concerned. He informed the registration of crime to P.Ws.13 and 14. P.W.13-Inspector of Police on receipt of information from P.W.11 reached the scene of offence situated in between Tadakanapalli and Obulapuram village at 9 AM, conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P.W.9, P.Ws.10 and 11, examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and recorded their statements. The inquest report is marked as Ex.P-12. He seized the material objects from the scene of offence including one dagger, and prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence covered under Ex.P17. He got the scene of offence photographed. He sent all the material objects to the Forensic Science Laboratory. He also sent the dead body of the deceased for post-mortem examination. P.W.12-Pofessor and Head of the Department of Forensic Department, Kurnool Medical College conducted autopsy over the dead body the deceased and issued Ex.P-16-Post mortem report opining that the cause of death was due to shock and hemorrhage due to multiple injuries. Since the case has to be investigated by an officer not below the rank of Sub-Divisional Police Officer, P.W.14-Deputy Superintendent of Police took up investigation and examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and 7 and recoded their statements. He arrested A-1 to A-6 on 9-3-2004 and after completion of investigation and after receiving relevant reports, P.W.14 filed charge sheet before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool. The learned Magistrate took the charge-sheet on file as PRC No.5/2005 and made over the same to the Special Judge for SC & ST (POA) Act since the offence is exclusively triable by Special Judge. The learned Special Judge took the case on file as SC ST SC No.32/2005. While A-3 was in judicial custody he died on 25-3-2004. The learned Magistrate took the charge-sheet on file as PRC No.5/2005 and made over the same to the Special Judge for SC & ST (POA) Act since the offence is exclusively triable by Special Judge. The learned Special Judge took the case on file as SC ST SC No.32/2005. While A-3 was in judicial custody he died on 25-3-2004. On committal, learned Special Judge framed charge under Sec.302 IPC or alternatively under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act and Sec.148 IPC, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu. They pleaded not guilty. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses and marked 26 documents and exhibited 15 material objects. On behalf of the defence, no witness was examined, but Exs.D-1to D-3, relevant portions in Sec.161 Cr.P.Cs., statements of P.Ws.1 to 3 respectively were marked. Learned Special Judge though held that the prosecution established to prove the guilt of the accused in committing the murder of the deceased convicted them for the offence under Sec. 3(2)(v) of the Act and since the accused were convicted for the offence under Sec. 3(2)(v) of the Act, no conviction need be given for the offence under Sec.302 IPC. Learned Special Judge further found the accused guilty for the offence under Sec. 148 IPC and convicted accordingly. They were sentenced to imprisonment as aforementioned. Hence, this criminal appeal by A-1, A-2, A-4 to A-6. Sri C.Padmanabha Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants contended that in the absence of any conviction for the offence under Sec. 302 IPC, the appellants cannot be convicted for the offence under Sec. 3(2)(v) of the Act on the ground that the deceased belonged to Scheduled Castes. For the said proposition, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in MASUMSHA HASANASHA MUSALMAN V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA1. He further contended that P.Ws.1 and 2 are planted witnesses for the prosecution as they have not lodged report promptly with the police, though they witness the incident at 7 PM on 6- 3-2004 report was lodged 12 hours after the incident ie., 7 AM on 7-3-2004, which improbabilises their presence and witnessing the incident. Further earlier statement recorded under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C., by P.W.13-Inspector of Police has not been produced nor furnished to the accused, and due to non-supply of the same, the accused have deprived of their valuable right to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses. Further earlier statement recorded under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C., by P.W.13-Inspector of Police has not been produced nor furnished to the accused, and due to non-supply of the same, the accused have deprived of their valuable right to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses. Once Sec. 161 Cr.P.C., statement is suppressed, a presumption has to be drawn that the same is favouable to the accused. When P.W.14 admitted of recording statements of P.Ws.1 to 5 on 7-3-2004 which are the earliest statements and which fact has also been admitted by him during the course of trial, failure to supply the statements is fatal to the prosecution case, therefore, the accused are entitled to acquittal. For the said proposition, he placed reliance on the judgment of his Court NANDIKANUMA LAKSHMAMMA V. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, on the other hand, while supporting the judgment under appeal contended that the accused have not complained of any prejudice before the trial court nor any suggestion was made to P.Ws.13 and 14 for non supply of statements recorded by them caused any prejudice. P.Ws.1 and 2 who are natural eye witnesses to the incident are going along with the deceased and witnessed incident. In SC No.1/2003, A-1 is an accused for the offence under Sc.376, in which the deceased was an eye witness, the prosecution established the motive of A-1 in eliminating the deceased. P.Ws.1 to 3 were afraid to report the matter to the police as the accused were armed with sticks and daggers, hence mere delay in lodging report is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. In the light of the rival submissions, the point that arises for consideration in this appeal is: Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused for the commission of the offence under Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt and whether for the offence under Indian Penal Code, conviction and sentence imposed for the offence under Sec. 3(2)(v) of the Act by the court below is sustainable or not? P.W.1, who is the younger brother of the deceased, sets the criminal law into motion by lodging a written complaint to P.W.11 at 7 AM on 7-3-2004, on which basis P.W.11 registered a case in Cr.No.11/2004 under Sections 147, 148, 302 IPC r/w 149 IPC and Sec. 3(2)(v) of the Act and issued FIR covered under Ex.P-5. P.W.1, who is the younger brother of the deceased, sets the criminal law into motion by lodging a written complaint to P.W.11 at 7 AM on 7-3-2004, on which basis P.W.11 registered a case in Cr.No.11/2004 under Sections 147, 148, 302 IPC r/w 149 IPC and Sec. 3(2)(v) of the Act and issued FIR covered under Ex.P-5. P.W.11 admitted in his cross examination that there is a difference in between the signature appearing on Ex.P-15 and the signature appearing on Ex.P- 1. He also admitted that in Ex.P-1, it is not mentioned that Somanna asked the deceased to enter into compromise with the accused in the rape case against A-1. He reached the scene of offence prior to the arrival of CI to the scene. P.W.1 deposed that he knows all the accused. A-2 is the elder brother of A-1. A-3 is the father of A-1. A-4 is the junior paternal uncle of A-1. A-5 is the son of senior paternal uncle of A-1. A-6 is the relative of A-1. Two years prior to the date of the death of the deceased, the daughter of his junior paternal uncle by name Rani was raped by A-1 in their village, for which the deceased was the witness in that case. A-1 refused to accept the proposal and told him that he would see his end for making such a proposal by stating that "how dare enough to ask him to marry Rani who belonged to Scheduled Caste". On 4-3-2004 his brother attended the court but the case was adjourned to 8-3-2004 as the accused failed to attend the court. On 6-3-2004 himself, the deceased and his brother, Ramudu, went to their field, situated near Obulapuam village at 4- 30 PM on moped, there he talked to his father and Junior paternal uncle. While himself and the deceased were returning home by 6-30 PM, P.W.2, the son of his junior paternal uncle followed them in the same moped, driven by the deceased. When they reached the field of Balija Veeramma at about 7 PM A-1 to A-6 came to them and stopped the moped. A-1 to A-4 came there with sticks and A-5 and A- 6 with daggers. Seeing them, himself and P.W.2 got down and went by the side of the road. When they reached the field of Balija Veeramma at about 7 PM A-1 to A-6 came to them and stopped the moped. A-1 to A-4 came there with sticks and A-5 and A- 6 with daggers. Seeing them, himself and P.W.2 got down and went by the side of the road. Immediately, thereafter A-1 and A-2 beat the deceased on the back of the head of the deceased and the remaining four accused stabbed him with daggers. Thereafter A-5 and A-6 stabbed the deceased on the right side of his neck and on the right side of his abdomen. After he fell down, the accused on thinking that he died threw him into a road side ditch. Thereafter, on cutting away the wires of the moped threw it into near by field of Balija Veeramma. After all the accused went of the place, himself and P.W.2 went to their field, where his father P.W.3 was present and they informed him of the death of the deceased. He asked them to stay in the field due to fear of the accused. On the next day morning, himself, P.Ws.2 and 3 came to the dead body of the deceased and keeping P.W.3 there itself, himself and P.W.2 went to the village and informed about the death of the deceased to his sister-in-law and his mother. Thereafter himself and P.W.2 went to the police station and he lodged a report covered under Ex.P-1 to the police. After lodging Ex.P-1, police came to the village and recorded his statement near the dead body. He also recorded the statement of P.W.2 and his father. On the next day, he conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and seized M.Os.1 to 15. On the next day Deputy Superintendent of Police recorded his statement. His statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., was recorded by the Magistrate at Kurnool. In the cross- examination, he admitted that the distance between Kurnool and Chinnatakur my be about 10 to 12 KMs. The field of Veeramma is situated at a distance of 2 furlongs from Gungulonikunta. The village Obulapuram is at a distance of one to two furlongs from the field of Veeramma ie., the place where the offence alleged to have taken place. Their field may be at a distance of 11/2 furlong from the temple of Anajneyaswamy. The field of Veeramma is situated at a distance of 2 furlongs from Gungulonikunta. The village Obulapuram is at a distance of one to two furlongs from the field of Veeramma ie., the place where the offence alleged to have taken place. Their field may be at a distance of 11/2 furlong from the temple of Anajneyaswamy. He did not state before the police that himself and his elder brother Rogenna went to the field on the date of offence at 2 PM. After coolies left the field, himself and his father remained there and were talking to each other. They were in the field upto 6-30 PM and left the field. There were houses upto Obulpuram village. At a distance of 100 meters from the houses, there is a school. They travelled to a distance of 3 furlongs from their field to reach the field of Veeramma. There is a public telephone booth in their village. There is telephone connection to the house of his deceased brother and there may be telephone connection in Obulapurm village. The bus which goes to Bairapuram has to go to Tadakanapalli along their field. The said bus comes to their village at 7 AM and the last bus comes to Bairapuram at 8 PM and leaves Bairapuram at 8-30 PM for Kurnool. Coolies of Bairapuram as well as Obulpuram attend to cooli work in their field. While the deceased was being beaten they did not intervene as they were armed with daggers. They did not go to the field where his father was available along the road. They did not try to inform about the incident to anybody on phone by going to Obulapuram village. Though he did not mention in Ex.P-1 he stated before the police that his father advised him not to go into the village after the incident. He does not remember whether the deceased was the second accused in the murder case of Shabbir and he knows that the elder brother of Shabbir, Meera Saheb was also murdered. He also admitted that a case was registered against him on the complaint of one Kistamma alleging that he cheated her on collecting money from her as LIC Agent. He admitted that while working under Prabhakar Reddy and thereafter he was having cell phone. Even to-day he is having cell phone with him. He also admitted that a case was registered against him on the complaint of one Kistamma alleging that he cheated her on collecting money from her as LIC Agent. He admitted that while working under Prabhakar Reddy and thereafter he was having cell phone. Even to-day he is having cell phone with him. After the offence, he tried to contact police through cell phone but he could not get connection. P.W.2 who is the cousin of the deceased corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 in all material particulars. In the cross-examination, he admitted that while going to the field they have to cross Obulapuram village. By the time when they reached the field of Balija Veeramma, A-1 to A-6 came there. A-1 to A-4 were armed with pattudu sticks and A-5 and A-6 with daggers. He cannot say which of the accused beat on which part of the deceased. While the deceased was being beaten by the accused they were standing at some distance and they did not run away due to fear. After the accused leaving the place, they went near the dead body to see it. After the incident himself and his brother did not talk to file a case. He did not inform about it by sending somebody else to police station after going to Obulpuram. They informed about the death of the deceased at about 7-30 or 8 PM. Himself and P.W.1 did not ask his senior paternal uncle and his father to inform about the death of the deceased to the villagers in Tadakanaplli village. While they were going to their field they saw a bus was going to Kurnool from Bairapuram and it was passing at a distance of 20 feet from their field. In the house of the deceased and in his house there are phones and the deceased was having cell phone in his pocket. They did not take the cell phone from him. During that time P.W.1 was also having cell phone. Police came to their village on the next day morning. He cannot say which police examined him. On the 2nd day of the incident, he was again examined by some of the police. P.W.3 who is the father of the deceased deposed that when he went to his field to harvest ground nut crop, his younger brother and his son- P.W.2 were present in the field. He cannot say which police examined him. On the 2nd day of the incident, he was again examined by some of the police. P.W.3 who is the father of the deceased deposed that when he went to his field to harvest ground nut crop, his younger brother and his son- P.W.2 were present in the field. On that day, evening the deceased and P.W.1 came to the field on a moped and were with him upto evening and thereafter they went away on the moped. After one hour, P.W.1 and 2 came to him and stated that sons of Venkateswara Reddy killed his son (deceased). He advised them to remain in the field. On the next day morning, himself, P.Ws.1 and 2 went to the dead body of the deceased. He asked P.Ws.1 and 2 to go into the village to inform about the death of the deceased while he remained at the dead body. Police came there and examined and recorded his statement. He admitted that he was examined by the police near the dead body. His son-P.W.1 was also examined near the dead body and his signature was obtained on his statement. He admitted that on information given by P.Ws.1 and 2 he thought of going to the dead body of the deceased but he did not go due to fear of the accused. They did not go to Obulapuram to inform about the death of the deceased. His deceased son was shown as accused in the murder case of Shabbir. P.W.4 is the wife of the deceased. She deposed that on coming to know about the death of her husband she went to the dead body of her husband which was lying on the way to their field. About 2 years prior to the death of her husband, Rani, the daughter of Dasthagiri was raped by A-1 and regarding the said incident, her husband took the Rani to police station with the help of her husband she filed a case against A-1. On filing such case, her husband was asked to enter into compromise through Somanna and her husband refused stating that he would not enter into compromise unless the marriage of Rani was celebrated with A-1. She admitted that there is phone at her house and P.Ws.1 and 2 did not talk by phone after their return from the field on the next day morning. She admitted that there is phone at her house and P.Ws.1 and 2 did not talk by phone after their return from the field on the next day morning. P.W.8 is a photographer. P.W.9 who is a Panchayat Secretary is a witness to the inquest report and observation panchanama. He admitted in his cross-examination that as per Ex.P-13 groundnuts were not separated from the plants that were harvested and they did not notice the heap of groundnuts. No blood stains were noticed on the dagger-M.O.7. P.W.12 is the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Kallur issued a caste certificate of the deceased covered under Ex.P-14 stating that the deceased belonged to SC (B) community. P.W.11-the then Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Ullindakonda Police Station deposed that on receipt of complaint covered under Ex.P-1 he registered the same as in Cr.No.11/2004 under Sections 147, 148, 302 r/w 149 IPC and S.3(2)(v) of the Act and issued FIR covered under Ex.P-15. He also sent copies of Ex.P- 15 to all the concerned. He admitted that there is difference in between the signature appearing on Ex.P-15 and the signature appearing on Ex.P-1. P.W.12 who is working as Professor and Head of the Department of Forensic Department, Kurnool Medical College deposed that he conducted postmortem examination and found 10 ante-mortem injuries as specified in the post-mortem certificate covered under Ex.P-16. He further deposed that injuries 1,6,7,8 are possible by sharp edged weapon like a dagger and the other injuries 2,3,4,5 and 9 are possible with blunt object like stick According to Ex.P-16 the deceased died due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of multiple injuries and the death occurred about 18 hours prior to post-mortem examination. P.W.13, the then Inspector of Police, Taluk Police Station deposed that on the information given by P.W.11 he along with his staff reached the scene of offence at 9 AM and by the time he went there P.W.11 and his staff were present. After obtaining a copy of Ex.P-15 and on collecting panchayatdars ie., P.W.9, L.W.10 and L.W.11, he held inquest over the dead body of the deceased. During the course of inquest, he examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and recorded their statements. After obtaining a copy of Ex.P-15 and on collecting panchayatdars ie., P.W.9, L.W.10 and L.W.11, he held inquest over the dead body of the deceased. During the course of inquest, he examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and recorded their statements. He seized blood stained earth and control earth, one dagger and pair of chappal and moped covered under M.Os.13, 14 , 7, 8 and 9 respectively In the cross-examination, he admitted that statements of P.Ws.1 to 5 recovered by him are not available with the court. He denied a suggestion that he foisted a false case against the accused. P.W.14, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kurnool deposed that on receiving Ex.P-15 on 8-3-2004 at 10 AM he visited the scene of offence where CI of Police came there and handed over CD file to him. He gone through the rough sketch of the scene of offence, which was prepared by the Circle Inspector of Police under Ex.P-17 and commenced the investigation. He examined P.Ws.1 and 2 at the scene of offence and recorded their statement. By that time Inspector of Police examined P.Ws.1 and 2 at the time of inquest. He admitted that P.W.1 did not state before him specifically that A-1 to A-4 were armed with sticks and A-5 and A-6 were armed with daggers. P.W.1 did not state before him specifically that A-3 to A-6 stabbed the deceased with dagger. P.W.1 did not specifically state that A-5 and A-6 stabbed the deceased on the right side of the neck and right side of abdomen by using dagger. P.W.1 did not state before him that P.W.3 advised him not to go to the village after occurrence of the incident. P.W.1 did not state before him that two days prior to 4-3-2004, A-1 and his relatives compelled the deceased to enter into compromise. P.W.1 did not state before him that when the deceased refused for the proposal, A-1 threatened the deceased that he would see his end. Similarly P.W.1 did not state before him that A-1 threatened the deceased as 'MADIGOLLU MAMMULANU PENDLI CHESUKOMANTARA". P.W.2 did not state before him that his father was present at the agriculture land on that day and P.W.1 came to the field at about 1-30 or 2 PM and deceased came to the field at 4-30 PM. He himself duly verified the statements of the witnesses recorded by the Inspector of Police. P.W.2 did not state before him that his father was present at the agriculture land on that day and P.W.1 came to the field at about 1-30 or 2 PM and deceased came to the field at 4-30 PM. He himself duly verified the statements of the witnesses recorded by the Inspector of Police. The said statements recorded by the Inspector of Police were not field along with charge sheet. P.W.15-Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class who recorded Sec. 164 Cr.P.C., statements of P.Ws.1 and 2 admitted that Ex.P-2 does not contain as A-3 and A-4 stabbed the deceased with dagger and A-5 and A-6 stabbed the deceased on the right side of the neck and right side of the abdomen. We shall now deal with the submission of the learned Senior Counsel that for non-supply of the statements recorded under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C., by P.W.3- Insector of Police, whether the accused denied a fair trial? Under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the police officer may reduce into writing any statement made to him in the course of examination under that provision and if he does so he shall make separate and true record of the statement of each such person whose statement he records. Sub-section (b) of Section 173 Cr.P.C., authorizes the police officer to claim a sort of privilege in respect of any statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., after giving reasons as to why such statement may not be provided to the accused. Section 207 Cr.P.C., adumbrates the Magistrate has to provide to the accused free of cost, copies of statements recorded under sub-section (3) of 161 subject to the exclusion in terms of Sec. 173(6) Cr.P.C., As per proviso to sub-section (1) of Sec. 162 Cr.P.C., when any witness is called for the prosecution in such inquiry or trial whose statement has been reduced into writing under sub-section (3) of Sec. 161 any part of the statement, if duly proved, may be used by the accused, and with the permission of the Court, by the prosecution, to contradict such witness in the manner provided by Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. This Court in KOTA PEDA NAGESH V. STATE OF A.P3 while dealing with the question of suppression of documents by the prosecution held that it is open to a Court to presume that the statements withheld would become unfavourable to the prosecution if produced and non furnishing of the statements recorded under Sec.161 Cr.P.C., has occasioned great prejudice to the accused. In In re K.PAPAIAH4 this court held that for non-supply of earlier statement, the accused were denied of a valuable right to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses with the aid of the earliest statements recorded under Section 162 Cr.P.C., and which itself is a sufficient ground to vitiate the entire trial of the case. Justice J.C.Shaw speaking for the Bench in NOORKHAN V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN5 held as follows: "The object of Sections 162, 173(4) and 207-A(3) is to enable the accused to obtain a clear picture of the case against him before the commencement of the inquiry. The sections impose an obligation upon the investigation officer to supply before the commencement of the inquiry copies of the statements of witnesses who are intended to be examined at the trial so that the accused may utilize those statements for cross-examining the witnesses to establish such defence as he desires to put up, and also to shake their testimony. Section 161(3) does not require a police-officer to record in writing the statements of witnesses examined by him in the course of the investigation, but if he does record in writing any such statements, he is obliged to make copies of those statements available to the accused before the commencement of proceedings in the Court so that the accused may know the details and particulars of the case against him and how the case is intended to be proved. The object of the provision is manifestly to give the accused the fullest information in the possession of the prosecution, on which the case of the State is based, and the statements made against him. But failure to furnish statements of witnesses recorded in the course of investigation may not vitiate the trial. It does not effect the jurisdiction of the Court to try a case, nor is the failure by itself a ground which affects the power of the Court to record a conviction, if the evidence warrants such a course. But failure to furnish statements of witnesses recorded in the course of investigation may not vitiate the trial. It does not effect the jurisdiction of the Court to try a case, nor is the failure by itself a ground which affects the power of the Court to record a conviction, if the evidence warrants such a course. The provision relating to the making of copies of statements recorded in the course of investigation is undoubtedly of great importance, but the breach thereof must be considered in the light of the prejudice caused to the accused by reason of its breach, for Section 537 (465 (new) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides, amongst other things that subject to the provisions contained in the Code no finding, sentence or order passed by a court of competent jurisdiction shall he reversed or altered on account of any error, omission or irregularity in the complaint, summons, warrant, proclamation, order, judgment or other proceedings before or during trial or in any inquiry or other proceedings under this Code, unless such error, omission, irregularity or misdirection has in fact occasioned a failure of justice." (para 15) The Privy Council in KOTTAYA V. EMPEROR6 had an occasion to consider the effect of non-production or supply one of the statements recorded under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C., to the court or to the accused when two sets of statements are recorded under Sec. 161 of the Code and after approving the ratio laid down in BALIRAM TAKARAM V. EMPEROR (AIR 1945 Nag.1), wherein it was held that "Their Lordships would, however, observe that where, as in those two cases, the statements were never made available to the accused, an inference, which is almost irresistible arises of prejudice to the accused. In the present case, the statements of the witnesses were made available though too late to be effective, and their contents are known. This by itself might not be decisive, but as already noted, the Circle Inspector re-examined the witnesses whom the police Sub-Inspector had examined, and did so on the same day. In the present case, the statements of the witnesses were made available though too late to be effective, and their contents are known. This by itself might not be decisive, but as already noted, the Circle Inspector re-examined the witnesses whom the police Sub-Inspector had examined, and did so on the same day. The notes of the examination by the Circle Inspector were made available to the accused at the earliest opportunity, and when the note-book of the police Sub-Inspector was produced towards the end of the prosecution case, counsel for the accused was in a position to ascertain whether there was any inconsistency between the statements made to the police Sub-Inspector and those made later in the day to the Circle Inspector. If any such inconsistency had been discovered, this would have been a strong point for the accused in their appeal, but no such point was taken; indeed, the only complaint upon this subject in the High Court was that the police Sub-Inspector ought to be presumed to have prepared a case diary which he was suppressing. The High Court rejected this contention, rightly as their Lordships think", held that case falls under Se. 537 and the trial is valid notwithstanding the breach of Sec. 162. In GADDAM JAYARAMI REDY, IN RE7 this court after following the judgment in BALIRAM TAKARAM V. EMPEROR (AIR 1945 Nag.1) held as follows: "..It is therefore of utmost importance to know their earliest versions especially when the First Information Report is silent about P.W.2. It would have offered the accused with very valuable material to cross-examine those witnesses. Why were these documents suppressed? The obvious answer is that they were not favourable to the prosecution. In circumstances like this, it is open to a Court to presume that the statements withheld would be unfavourable to prosecution if produced. It would have offered the accused with very valuable material to cross-examine those witnesses. Why were these documents suppressed? The obvious answer is that they were not favourable to the prosecution. In circumstances like this, it is open to a Court to presume that the statements withheld would be unfavourable to prosecution if produced. At any rate, much value does not attach to the testimony of these witnesses in such a situation." This Court in NANDIKAMMA LAKSHMAMMA (2 supra) after referring to the judgment of the Privy Council in KOTAYYA V. EMPEROR (6 supra) held that failure of prosecution to supply the statements recorded by P.W.17 by the investigating officer under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C., as well as the accused is a serious lapse on the part of the prosecution, which had adversely affected the rights of the appellants under Sec. 162 Cr.P.C., and Section 145 of the Evidence Act, apart from infraction of Sec. 173 and 207 Cr.P.C., Indisputably, in the present case, P.W.13-Inspector of Police during the course of inquest examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and recorded their statements, which were verified by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Kurnool, who examined the witnesses on the next day as stated by P.Ws.1 and 2. P.W.3 admitted that he was examined by the police while he was present near the dead body and thereafter he was not examined by any one of the police. In Ex.P-1-complaint, which is the earliest report, P.W.1 has not stated that after the incident they went to the field where P.W.3, father of P.W.1 was at the field and with whom he narrated the incident and advised him to stay in the fields till the next day, which resulted delay in lodging the report. There are discrepancies with regard to manner of assault on the deceased in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and Ex.P-1 as well as Sec. 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., statements. In the FIR, it is stated by P.W.1 that accused persons armed with knives and sticks came there and among them A-1 and A-2 beat the deceased with sticks on his back of his head and the remaining four accused beat the deceased with sticks and stabbed him. Whereas in the statement recorded under Sec.161 Cr.P.C., on the next day by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, P.W.1 stated that A-1 to A-4 were armed with sticks and the remaining two accused armed with knives. Whereas in the statement recorded under Sec.161 Cr.P.C., on the next day by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, P.W.1 stated that A-1 to A-4 were armed with sticks and the remaining two accused armed with knives. In another statement recorded under Sec. 164 Cr.P.C., by the Magistrate, P.W.1 stated that A-1 to A-4 beat the deceased with sticks on his back of the head and A-5 and A-6 stabbed him. In the evidence before the Court, P.W.1 stated that A-1 to A-4 armed with sticks and A-5 and A-6 armed with daggers. A-1 and A-2 beat on the back of the head of the deceased and thereafter all the remaining four accused stabbed him with daggers. Under these circumstances, it can safely presume that 161 Cr.P.C., statements recorded by P.W.13 are not favourable to the case of the prosecution and they were purposefully suppressed by the prosecution. It is well settled cross-examination is undoubtedly the greatest legal engine ever invented for discovery of truth. Denial of an opportunity for cross-examination on the earliest statements would result a fatal flaw and also infraction of fair trial under Art. 21 of the Constitution. When a suggestion was made to P.W.14 that he admitted that he verified the statements of the witnesses recorded by Inspector of Police which were not filed along with the charge-sheet, he has not claimed any privilege in respect of statements recorded under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C., by P.W.13 by giving reasons why such statements were not made available to the accused. Therefore, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution wantonly suppressed the earliest statements recorded, if which produced will not substantiate the accusation made against the accused. From the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it is clear that P.Ws. 1 and 2 are alleged to be accompanied the deceased on the moped. P.W.1 admitted that there is public telephone booth in their village and there is telephone connection to the house of the deceased, which fact was admitted by P.W.4. They have not informed of the death of the deceased to any body by phone. P.W.2, cousin of the deceased, admitted that they have to cross Obulapuram village to go to the fields from the scene of offence. Once it is admitted that there are telephone connections at Obulapuram village, they have not informed the same either to P.W.4 or to the police. P.W.2, cousin of the deceased, admitted that they have to cross Obulapuram village to go to the fields from the scene of offence. Once it is admitted that there are telephone connections at Obulapuram village, they have not informed the same either to P.W.4 or to the police. P.W.1 also admitted that there are houses upto Obulapuram village. P.W.1 admitted that a case was registered against him on the complaint of one Kistamma alleging that he cheated her on collecting money from her as LIC agent, which shows that P.W.2 is an elite person to lodge a complaint or inform the police with the cell phone possessed by him or can contract from Obulapuram where telephone facility is available had they (P.Ws.1 and 2) have witnessed the incident. It is settled that mere delay in FIR is not necessarily fatal to the case of the prosecution. However, fact that the report was lodged belatedly is a relevant fact on which court must take note of. This fact has to be considered in the light of other facts and circumstances of the case. Even as per the evidence, after attacking the deceased the accused left the place to their village Thadakanapalli but P.Ws.1 to 3 did not try to inform about the incident to anybody even at Obulapuram village nor to police on the same day. Their conduct is quite unnatural and delay in lodging nor informing the villagers about the incident has not been properly explained by the prosecution, therefore their presence at the time of incident is also doubtful. Therefore, it is presumed that due to delay in lodging FIR there is a possibility of embellishment and false implication of the accused due to rivalry between the prosecution party and the accused party. For the aforesaid conclusion reached by us, we are of the view that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences charged under the Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt and they are entitled to acquittal by extending benefit of doubt. We accordingly do so. We shall now deal with the submission that in the absence of any conviction for the offence under Sec. 302 IPC whether the appellants can be convicted for the offence under Sec. 3(2)(v) of the Act? Sec.3(2)(v) of the Act reads as under: 3. We accordingly do so. We shall now deal with the submission that in the absence of any conviction for the offence under Sec. 302 IPC whether the appellants can be convicted for the offence under Sec. 3(2)(v) of the Act? Sec.3(2)(v) of the Act reads as under: 3. Punishment for offences of atrocities:- (1) x x x ; (2) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,- (i) to (iv) x x x (v) commits any offence under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years or more against a person or property on the ground that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member, shall be punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine; (vi) to (vii) x x x x. From the above, it is clear that a person who commits any offence under Indian Penal Code punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years or more against a person or property on the ground that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe shall be punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine. The word "commit" means to perform an act, execute, carryout or accomplish a crime. Unless a person commits any offence under the Indian Penal Code, punishment of imprisonment for life by invoking the above provision does not arise. In other words, conviction can be on offence committed but mere charge for commission of offence does not lead to the conclusion that a person committed the offence. When a person is acquitted of charge for any offence under the Indian Penal Code, by no stretch of imagination he can be convicted for the offence under Sec. 3(2) (v) of the Act since commission of the offences under the Indian Penal Code has not been established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. When a person is acquitted of charge for any offence under the Indian Penal Code, by no stretch of imagination he can be convicted for the offence under Sec. 3(2) (v) of the Act since commission of the offences under the Indian Penal Code has not been established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. In Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman v. State of Maharashtra8 the Supreme Court held that to attract the provisions of Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, the sine qua non is that the victim should be a person who belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and that the offence under the Indian Penal Code is committed against him on the basis that such a person belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. In the absence of such ingredients, no offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act arises. In Ramdas v. State of Maharashtra9 the Supreme Court held that the mere fact that the victim happened to be a girl belonging to a Scheduled Caste does not attract the provisions of the Act. When the prosecution miserably failed to explain the delay and there is a possibility of embellishment and false implication of the accused due to rivalry between the prosecution party and the accused party, unless accused committed an offence under Indian Penal Code is established, they cannot be convicted under Sec. 3(2)(v) of the Act. The trial court without recording any conviction and sentence for the offence under Sec. 302 IPC convicted the accused for the offence under Sec. 3(2)(v) of the Act. When prosecution failed to establish that the accused committed an offence under Sec. 3(2)(v) of the Act, conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court cannot be sustainable and the same is accordingly set-aside. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed, and the conviction and sentences imposed on the appellants/A-1, A-2, A-4 to A-6 by the Special Judge for SC & ST (POA) Act-cum-VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kurnool in SC ST SC No.32/2005, for the offences under Sec. 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and 148 IPC are set- aside and they are acquitted of the said offences. The appellants/A-1, A-2, A-4 to A-6 shall be set at liberty forthwith, if they are not required in any other case. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellants/A-1. The appellants/A-1, A-2, A-4 to A-6 shall be set at liberty forthwith, if they are not required in any other case. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellants/A-1. A-2,A-4 to A-6 shall be refunded to them.