L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J :-0n the basis of a complaint dated 6.6.1995, submitted by one Mr. Chikkala Syamala Sundara Kumar-P.W.1, police registered Crime No.139 of 1995 against Al to A3, the respondents herein, under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It was alleged that the first respondent-AI, together with A2 and A3, attacked one Mr. Rajasekhar with a knife at 6 p.m. on 6.6.1995 and that the said Rajasekhar succumbed to injuries. The case was tried by the Court of ill Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam as Sessions Case No.135 of 1995. The accused pleaded innocence. Through the judgment dated 19.11.2006, the trial Court acquitted the respondents-A1 to A3 herein. Hence, this appeal by the State. 2. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that though the eye-witnesses turned hostile, there is sufficient circumstantial evidence in the form of medical reports and postmortem report to the effect that the first respondent-AI stabbed the deceased. He submits that the motive for the respondents to kill the deceased was clearly established and the trial Court had acquitted the accused, by taking hyper technical view of the matter. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that even if it is a fact that Al received injuries in the altercation, the mere fact that the said injuries were not referred to by the prosecution during the course of trial, by itself, cannot be a factor to acquit the respondents. According to him, the trial Court ought to have examined the question as to whether there existed any justification for the AI, to cause the death of the deceased, even if it was a fact that he received injuries in the course of altercation. 3. Sri K. Sorvabhouma Rao, learned Counsel for accused Nos.l and 2 and Sri E. V. Bhagiratha Rao, learned Counsel for the first accused submit that it is a matter on record that the first accused sustained injuries in the same altercation, so much so that he was sent to hospital by the police and still, no reference was made to it. It is further submitted by them that Crime No.140 of 1995, which was registered by the police, was closed without any basis and the trial Court had applied the correct principles laid down by this Court. 4. It is further submitted by them that Crime No.140 of 1995, which was registered by the police, was closed without any basis and the trial Court had applied the correct principles laid down by this Court. 4. According to the prosecution, there existed some disputes between P.Ws.1 to 3 on the one hand and all the accused on the other hand, and in the process, A I attacked the deceased with a knife and that A2 and A3 assisted him in furtherance of their common intention. The prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 17 and marked Exs.Pl to P31. P.Ws.l to 3 are brothers. The genesis of the disputes between P.Ws.l to 3 on the one hand and the accused on the other hand, is said to be the use of objectionable language by the latter, against the sister of P.Ws.1 to 3, at about three {3} months prior to the date of the incident. The deceased, who was said to be a close friend of P.W.1, was said to have objected to the conduct of the accused, and with a view to settle scores with him, the accused are said to have attacked the deceased on 6.6.1995 at 6 p.m. None of P.Ws.1 to 3 are eye-witnesses to the incident. P.Ws.5, 6, 9 and 15 are cited as eye-witnesses but all of them were declared hostile. Other witnesses include the panch witnesses, photographer, doctor, who conducted autopsy, the Investigating Officer etc. 5. Though the eye-witnesses have turned hostile, it could have been possible for the Court below, to convict the accused, if there existed adequate circumstantial evidence. The record, however, discloses that the circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution is not sufficient to result in conviction of the accused in this case. 6. There is one important circumstance that weighed with the trial Court, in giving clear acquittal to the respondents. It is a matter on record that the first accused sustained injuries at about the same time and at the same place, at which the deceased was murdered. The police themselves shifted the first accused to the Government Hospital at Anakappalle and thereafter of King George Hospital, Visakhapatnam At that Government Hospital at Anakapalle and thereafter to King George Hospital, Visakhapatnam. At that time, he was said to be unconscious. Two {2} days later, his statement was recorded by the police, in the hospital. The police themselves shifted the first accused to the Government Hospital at Anakappalle and thereafter of King George Hospital, Visakhapatnam At that Government Hospital at Anakapalle and thereafter to King George Hospital, Visakhapatnam. At that time, he was said to be unconscious. Two {2} days later, his statement was recorded by the police, in the hospital. He stated that he was attacked by the deceased and P.W.1, when he was reading a newspaper at the place mentioned in the statement. Crime No.140 of 1995 was registered for the offence under Section 324 IPC against the deceased and P.W.I. 7. If according to the prosecution, the first accused sustained injuries in the same incident, in all fairness, they ought to have mentioned it in the final report and during the course of trial. However, the trial proceeded as though the first accused did not receive any injuries at all and that together with accused Nos.2 and 3, he attacked the deceased. Ex.P28, FIR in Crime No.140 of 1995 was closed by the police as a false case. In view of the fact that an incident that has taken place at 6 p.m. on 6.6.1995 has given rise to the death of the deceased and injuries to the first respondent, both the cases ought to have been tried together. In such an event, there r would have been an occasion for the trial r Court, to assess as to whether the murder c of the deceased was caused by the first accused in the course of self-defence, or d whether he had exceeded the reasonable the limits of such right. Inasmuch as the prosecution did not refer to the factum of the first accused receiving injuries in the same incident, the trial Court was left with no alternative, except to presume that the version presented by the prosecution, was not truthful one. If that opinion is formed, the only result would be to extend benefit of doubt to the accused. It placed reliance on the judgment of this Court reported in Prahlad Apto and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1994 (2) ALT (Crl.) 363. 8. We have gone through the voluminous evidence placed before us to fmd out whether there exists 'any independent evidence to convict the accused; but in vain. It placed reliance on the judgment of this Court reported in Prahlad Apto and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1994 (2) ALT (Crl.) 363. 8. We have gone through the voluminous evidence placed before us to fmd out whether there exists 'any independent evidence to convict the accused; but in vain. As pointed out earlier, the gravamen of charge was against the first accused and accused Nos.2 and 3 were implicated under Section 34 IPC. When there was no reference to the injuries sustained by the first accused and even according to the prosecution, he was receiving treatment in the hospital by the time the deceased was shifted to the same hospital, there does not exist any basis to convict him, much less, accused Nos.2 and 3, who are roped in under Section 34 IPC. 9. Irrespective of the basis on which the crime was registered in relation to the injuries sustained by the first accused, non-mentioning of the same in the entire prosecution in the instant case would certainly shake the very truthfulness of the version of the prosecution. The benefit of doubt naturally deserves to be extended to the respondents and that is what the trial Court has done. We do not find any reason to interfere with the same. 10. The criminal appeal is accordingly dismissed.